Quantum physics, which I don't understand, aside, — TheMadFool

That is a BIG aside.

governed by fixed natural laws of matter, energy and force. — TheMadFool

With quantum physics aside, exactly which laws are you referring to?

Even the roll of a dice or the toss of a coin are governed by laws of mechanics. — TheMadFool

Which law would this be?

Rather, it's some sort of rough interpretation that helps us make decisions and comprehend what is vastly complex in terms of mechanics. — TheMadFool

Quantum physics says no, probability is baked in and quantum behavior had been observed at the molecular level.

I've heard that, for instance, radioactive decay is objectively a chance thing - which atom will decay is entirely random (so they say). However, this too is an issue of our ignorance - — TheMadFool

No, it is not a matter of ignorance. You have to read up on quantum theory.

Also, even if the quantum world is a chance game, it's proven that the macroscopic world, in which we live, is governed by laws which have been mathematically expressed. — TheMadFool

No, there are no laws which govern everything. Is this something you read? You believe? Someone told you?

So, is probability an illusion? — TheMadFool

Well according to biology, the mind is an illusion so everything is an illusion including you. So what do you think about that?

To sum up, every single sentence you wrote is questionable. Does this peak your curiosity?

So you're saying that probability is really a knowledge gap, rather than actual probability. Is that right?

So you're saying that probability is really a knowledge gap, rather than actual probability. Is that right? — MikeL

He is restating a 17th century philosophical faith that someday science will discover the Laws of Nature that will enable scientists to predict everything. It is the Materialist Determinist faith. Unfortunately, all hopes were pretty much pulverized 100 years ago, but old ideas die hard and materialist-determinists keep faith alive in all levels of education. The problem is you can't put quantum theory aside, even if it is only 100 years old.

How do materialist-determinists keep hope alive? It's tough. I empathize with their efforts. Everyone needs hope in their lives.

You know what I think would make life so much easier for people on both sides? To invoke a new force called the life force and give it some Greek letter.

You could then reference it in equations and because it is in a nutshell, science could seriously begin to hunt for it, just like they have for the other forces.

I looked at the unifying equation they have so far, and it is only a serious of pointers to other equations. Throw the life force letter into the mix too.

You know what I think would make life so much easier for people on both sides? To invoke a new force called the life force and give it some Greek letter. — MikeL

Bohm imbedded it in the quantum potential initial variable of his quantum mechanics equation, but I don't believe such an approach had merit. Mathematical equations are symbolic and are not ontological. The only way to understand nature is by direct observation, not symbolic substitution. Symbols freeze, make immobile, into the discontinuous while life is continuous.

Did the equations hold?

There are no equations that describe life. A little issue that materialists-determinists like to avoid mentioning.

Do you know if there's any that point to life? Some constant you need to keep invoking in QM say, so the equations hold?

The quantum potential is the probabilistic initial conditions which are equivalent to the Schrodinger equation. It is this probabilistic aspect that Bohm suggests opens up the possibility of a consciousness that then becomes imbedded in what he called the Implicate/Explicate Order which is Bohm's ontology. This metaphysics goes far beyond the limits of the quantum mechanical equation. Ultimately, Bohm is relying on creative intuition in formulating his metaphysics if the universe.

That sounds like a good thing. Why hasn't it been embraced and become an area of research? Or has it?

Hello, hello, the holographic model.

That sounds like a good thing. Why hasn't it been embraced and become an area of research? Or has it? — MikeL

It takes a very brave person to challenge the materialistic-determinist priests that rule academia. Bell and Aspect did, and much to the consternation of materialist-determinists, found that that the non-local aspects of Bohm's quantum potential is observable in laboratory experiments at the molecular level and at great distances (the recent Chinese experiment from satellites). Pop goes "quantum doesn't affect the macro" mantra.

But no worry, materialist-determinists hold fast to their faith. Their faith is strong.

I like these implicate and explicate order definitions. I can use these.
It's good they disagree. Let's go get 'em. :)

If you are interested in learning about the nature of life, it is necessary to experience it and this takes lots of patience and study. There are no shortcuts. Choose a subject area you enjoy and begin studying it deeply. It's not what someone else said or wrote. It is what you experience.

That is a BIG aside. — Rich

Not that big. Have you noticed when you kick a ball that it moves with a certain speed, in a certain direction and with a specific spin - all of which can be calcualted, thus predicted, in Newtonian terms.

Yes, it could be (I'm not sure - need proof) that QM is probabilistic but that doesn't matter because the world on a human scale is NOT probabilistic (as I've shown above). So, chance plays no role at the human level of existence.

We could say that the mind is a Quantum process but, a BIG but, its effects, so far as we're concerned, are NOT. For instance, a QM process in my mind may be a desire to lift my arm but the process of lifting my arm are not probabilistic; they're determined by laws of chemistry and physics (science has proved that).

With quantum physics aside, exactly which laws are you referring to? — Rich

Pick up a science book and you'll see them. Newton's laws, Pascal's law, Boyle's law, etc. etc.

Quantum physics says no, probability is baked in and quantum behavior had been observed at the molecular level. — Rich

I'm saying that probability is deeply linked to ignorance. The process by which we conclude whether or not a certain process/thing is probabilistic or not is exclusion.

What I mean is, first, we assume the existence of a general law that governs a process. If we find one, we name the law and express it mathematically. Only if not, are we warranted to think the process/entity is probabilistic. The problem is we can never know if our search has been exhaustive or not. There are just too many possibilities to consider. Hence, the label ''probability'' says more about our ignorance than anything about the process/entity itself.

You have to read up on quantum theory. — Rich

Can you please explain the probabilistic nature of QM to me. Thanks.

No, there are no laws which govern everything. — Rich

Gravity doesn't apply to all matter?

Well according to biology, the mind is an illusion so everything is an illusion including you. So what do you think about that? — Rich

Do you question your own existence? What is it that engages you in this conversation?

Everything is an illusion doesn't make sense. An illusion, to exist, must have a real counterpart.

So you're saying that probability is really a knowledge gap, rather than actual probability. Is that right? — MikeL

Yes, at least on the scale of human existence.

Not that big. Have you noticed when you kick a ball that it moves with a certain speed, in a certain direction and with a specific spin - all of which can be calcualted, thus predicted, in Newtonian terms. — TheMadFool

Approximately. That is all.

Pick up a science book and you'll see them. Newton's laws, Pascal's law, Boyle's law, etc. etc. — TheMadFool

All approximate. None complete. Certainly none that govern human behavior.

Again, did you research this or are you just repeating something, maybe something often heard on this forum? Materialism-determinism survives based upon faith.

I'm saying that probability is deeply linked to ignorance. — TheMadFool

This is fine. It is your faith. Quantum physics says the opposite.

What I mean is, first, we assume the existence of a general law that governs a process — TheMadFool

Ok. This is called quantum physics. There is no other. It says the universe is probabilistic. Now you can override this with a materialistic-deterministic determination (Einstein held to this faith until he died, so you would be in good company), or you can set aside your faith. Change is difficult but you have a choice. Based upon that you have a very strong faith in materialism-determinism (as do others) you probably will not change, but you might. Such is the probabilistic nature of the universe. You might change, because you have a choice, but probably not because of habits.

Can you please explain the probabilistic nature of QM to me. Thanks. — TheMadFool

Quantum physics is quite similar the Schrodinger (or Bohm's) probabilistic equations. It supplanted Newton's equations 90 years ago though Newton's approximations are still used because it is simpler and good enough for practical purposes. Remember, it only takes one, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny probabilistic event anywhere in the universe to eliminate determinism. Quantum physics says they are happening everywhere, all the time. Materialist-Determinists tend to ignore this.

Gravity doesn't apply to all matter? — TheMadFool

Gravity is everywhere.

Everything is an illusion doesn't make sense. An illusion, to exist, must have a real counterpart. — TheMadFool

Of course. Claiming an illusion is a cop out, but that's the best biological sciences has to offer now for human consciousness, which is why I ignore it.

This is fine. It is your faith. — Rich

Faith? My statements, hopefully, are based on facts. Also, what are your beliefs based on?

Remember, it only takes one, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny probabilistic event anywhere in the universe to eliminate determinism. — Rich

That's exactly the problem. Probability is arrived upon through two processes:

1. Approximation of complex deterministic processes e.g. coin tosses and dice rolls

2. By a process of elimination i.e. we first look for deterministic processes and, upon finding none, conclude the phenomena to be probabilistic. And this elimination method can never be exhaustive - there's always the possibility that we've overlooked something. See the flaw?

Even the roll of a dice or the toss of a coin are governed by laws of mechanics. That's to say what we commonly interpret as probability is NOT objective probability. Rather, it's some sort of rough interpretation that helps us make decisions and comprehend what is vastly complex in terms of mechanics. — TheMadFool

Let's take an everyday, scientifically and technologically important, well studied, non-quantum example - the behavior of a gas in a closed container. What are the properties of this gas? Pressure (P), volume (V), mass, temperature (T), number of molecules ( N). The Ideal Gas Law says PV=NRT. "R" is a constant which depends on the units of measurement.

The basis of the relationship expressed in the equation is the average behavior of vast numbers of molecules bouncing off each other and the walls of the container following the laws of classical physics. We don't know the actual velocity or direction of any one molecule. Even if it could be done, which quantum mechanics says it can't, a computer would have to have almost infinite capacity to track the molecules of even a small volume of gas. I'm sure someone can do a calculation to show that the program would require more time to run than the universe has existed.

And that's the way the classical world at human scale in general works. It's all average behaviors stitched together by the laws of probability.

And that's the way the classical world at human scale in general works. It's all average behaviors stitched together by the laws of probability. — T Clark

Thanks for your input. That's what I mean. As far as the human level of existence is concerned, these probabilistic behaviors, you demonstrated so well, average out deterministically.

So, as we don't exist at an atomic scale, the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena don't affect us. In other words, we live in a deterministic world.

Thanks for your input. That's what I mean. As far as the human level of existence is concerned, these probabilistic behaviors, you demonstrated so well, average out deterministically.

So, as we don't exist at an atomic scale, the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena don't affect us. In other words, we live in a deterministic world. — TheMadFool

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but that doesn't seem like the question you were asking in the OP and the one I thought I was answering.

Quantum physics, which I don't understand, aside, the world on the human scale (macroscopic world?) is governed by fixed natural laws of matter, energy and force. — TheMadFool

Quite the opposite. Natural law is derived from QM, not the other way around.

Even the roll of a dice or the toss of a coin are governed by laws of mechanics.

In a pure Newtonian set of physical rules, this is true.

I've heard that, for instance, radioactive decay is objectively a chance thing - which atom will decay is entirely random (so they say).

QM does not say it this way. This is interpretive language, which you are free to use, but such language is not QM.

He is restating a 17th century philosophical faith that someday science will discover the Laws of Nature that will enable scientists to predict everything. — Rich

Even in hard deterministic universe without QM, such predictability is easily disproved. Inability to predict has nothing to do with determinism or lack of it. You seem pretty bent on a different stance.

I'm saying that probability is deeply linked to ignorance. The process by which we conclude whether or not a certain process/thing is probabilistic or not is exclusion.

What I mean is, first, we assume the existence of a general law that governs a process. If we find one, we name the law and express it mathematically. Only if not, are we warranted to think the process/entity is probabilistic. — TheMadFool

Wait, what if the law above is a probabilistic one? It means the mathematical model has probability baked in. Interpretation of that model on the other hand is open. There are multiple consistent (valid) interpretations, and if it is meaningful that one of them is more correct, then that's where the ignorance comes in: There is no way to choose among valid interpretations, so the typical course of action is to choose based on what you want to be true.

So, is probability an illusion? — TheMadFool

If the world on the human scale, as you put it, is governed by these natural laws, and you know what these laws are, why don't you have perfect knowledge of the future? Why is every moment so riddled with uncertainty?

All you are expressing is some sort of faith in the natural sciences. If only the natural sciences could have predicted what would win the St Leger yesterday I'd be a rich man.

I'm disappointed that all the replies, including Rich who can usually be relied on to be splenetically anti-science, appealed to the natural sciences.

Laws don't govern worlds. It's that when humans investigate certain defined worlds, usually in a laboratory or by imagining some parts of the world away to focus better on the problem at hand, we can make a good stab at understanding how they work, and some of the rules we call 'laws'. Bridges mostly don't fall down, I have a magic telephone, and soon elaborate cars will be able to drive themselves. Still, I have no idea what I or my neighbour might do next, even if my neighbour insists that she lives in a deterministic world. This strikes me as uncertainty.

Even in hard deterministic universe without QM, such predictability is easily disproved. Inability to predict has nothing to do with determinism or lack of it. You seem pretty bent on a different stance. — noAxioms

If course. Old ideas die hard. There is no such thing as precise prediction of anything. And all Laws are just approximations that are practical. I have no idea why they are called Laws. They are just practical equations.

Faith? My statements, hopefully, are based on facts. Also, what are your beliefs based on? — TheMadFool

"Hopefully" is the operative word.

Everything I say is a belief subject to change and revision. Everything is constantly in flux.

Laws don't govern worlds. It's that when humans investigate certain defined worlds, usually in a laboratory or by imagining some parts of the world away to focus better on the problem at hand, we can make a good stab at understanding how they work, and some of the rules we call 'laws'. — mcdoodle

What are called "laws" of science are not laws or rules at all, they are descriptions of how matter and energy generally behave in certain situations. It's not how the world must be, it's just how it happens to be.

That's exactly the problem. Probability is arrived upon through two processes:

1. Approximation of complex deterministic processes e.g. coin tosses and dice rolls

2. By a process of elimination i.e. we first look for deterministic processes and, upon finding none, conclude the phenomena to be probabilistic. And this elimination method can never be exhaustive - there's always the possibility that we've overlooked something. See the flaw? — TheMadFool

Since there is no evidence of this and all evidence is to the contrary, it would be best if you end such statements with an Amen - for accuracy sake.

Humans are amazing when it comes to faith.

I would like to say to start with that if probability's interpretation is a quantification of uncertainty, then randomness is trivially part of every day life. It is more interesting to ask whether there is a more fundamental sense of probability. Chance in the territory rather than the map.

Calculations in quantum physics are typically deriving or derived from probabilities of certain events [or their probability distributions]. The probabilities of events are related to a system's wavefunction. In my experience physicists believe that the fundamental objects of quantum mechanics - wavefunctions - are real. The probabilities calculated about quantum systems are not generally thought of as representations of our, that is sentient life perceiving events, lack of knowledge. They are instead thought of as the distinguishing properties of a quantum system. What is real are probability and wave functions, at the quantum level. So reality does have intrinsically random elements because of this.

The presence of quantum behaviour in a physical system depends on the size of its constituents. Molecular and compound level scales can still exhibit this behaviour. Whether there is a characteristic size below which quantum behaviour is relevant and above which it is irrelevant (quantum -> non quantum transitions being discrete), or whether quantum effects smoothly decay with respect to some length scale says nothing about whether reality is 'really probabalistic' or 'really deterministic'. It's usually possible, as done in this thread, that since such a transition occurs - we can claim that reality is deterministic 'really' since for most length scales they behave like some largely pre-theoretical folk-physics which usually comes with some intuition of cause and effect and repeatability of events yielding a (usually also undefined) notion of determinism. This largely unarticulated sense of determinism usually conflicts with the following observations:

If definition: intrinsic randomness is random behaviour in a system which cannot be removed through increased knowledge of the system: is permitted, it is actually the case that there are commonplace observable phenomena that arise from random processes in a natural way on usual human length scales (say from about 1 millimetre to the size of America). Usually to do with the aggregate properties of ensembles. Such as there being more small hospitals than large hospitals which on a given day have >60% of their children being born boys (law of large numbers), settlements having the highest per capita and smallest per capita rates of diseases are typically small (law of large numbers). Stock market prices are also random as they depend in a non-trivial way on the properties of ensembles and show many characteristic features of randomness. It's also true that Heisenberg-like uncertainty principles occur with any audio-signal or more generally a sequence of records over time - the uncertainty being an intrinsic property of signals and sequences in a similar fashion to the 'fuzziness' of quantum systems.

**edit: another macro scale example of random properties are gasses.
***edit: another macro scale example is small scale eye movements (jitter/microsaccades) obeying the properties of spatial white noise.

****edit:

The idea that with sufficient information all laws can be derived from quantum mechanics is also quite ridiculous, since such a theory would include limiting behaviour to precisely account for the macroscopic irrelevance of quantum mechanical laws. Such as in relativity when c->infinity for systems much slower than the speed of light (Lorentz factor tending to 1).

There is no such thing as precise prediction of anything. And all Laws are just approximations that are practical. I have no idea why they are called Laws. They are just practical equations. — Rich

You must mean something different when you use the word "precise" than I do. They can determine the distance from a point on the earth to the moon within centimeters. They can predict how much a cesium clock will slow down when it's carried from the first story to the second story in my house within fractions of a nanosecond. They can predict exactly where and when a solar eclipse will take place 1,000 years in the future.

Also, I can predict exactly what you will say if I use the results of science in one of my discussions - "Faith, it's faith. Just faith. You put your faith in the God of science. Faith, faith, faith."

They can determine the distance from a point on the earth to the moon within centimeters. — T Clark

Great. But it is just an approximation. Everything is always an approximation because everything is in continuous flux. The measurement is "old" before it is even made.

Reading anything more into it is an act of faith based upon some hope that everything is fated. Many religions share this point of view and are quite comfortable with it. Materialists-Determinists who view themselves as objective scientists seem to have a very difficult time with their faith.

If course. Old ideas die hard. There is no such thing as precise prediction of anything. — Rich

Who is clinging to these old ideas of perfect predictability? Anybody who knows their mathematics, never mind their physics?
Or is your stance that lack of predictability implies lack of determinism that you so spit against?

Materialists-Determinists who view themselves as objective scientists seem to have a very difficult time with their faith. — Rich

Materialist-Determinist is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. Science does not depend on the stance, even if some scientists hold the stance in faith, as you do whatever yours might be.