which category people feel ... if people feel t — Gary Enfield
Is there another possibility to add to the list? — Gary Enfield
If traditional maths is essentially Determinism, as it produces single inevitable outcomes, (other than when probabilities are deployed), then how should we interpret the multiple outcomes? — Gary Enfield
Amen, brother! In my worldview, our space-time existence is due neither to A> random spontaneity, nor to B> linear divine command & response, but to a combination of law & disorder*1. My hypothetical First Cause is not a humanoid superman who creates via magic, but a universal Principle of EnFormAction that is inherently creative. The Prime Cause of space-time Reality is also not a cosmic accident of pulling itself up by its own non-existent bootstraps. Instead, it's more like the ancient notion of eternal Chaos, with Potential for en-form-ation (creating new forms), from which actual space-time forms (material things) emerge. The typical concept of Chaos is of much-ado-about-nothing : completely feckless random buzzing. But the scientific version of Chaos theory is based on the discovery that even directionless disorderly systems (such as genetic mutations) have the Potential to create some pockets of logical (linear) order that may prove functional.I think you should add Chaos theory to the list:
Systems have three modes of operation: - predictable (linear) - chaotic (nonlinear) - random (random) — 3017amen
I haven't read the referenced book, so I'm not sure why it limits the reason-for-being to "Spontaneity" and "Randomness", in which the cause of any novelty is unknown or irrational, perhaps a mysterious "hidden variable". In my theory, the hidden variable is Intention. Plato's Chaos is not a "cloud of un-being", but the Source of all existence, which I call "BEING" to distinguish it from created beings. It's equivalent to a creator god, except that it is totally abstract and mathematical, with no human characteristics. And yet, its Eternal Potential obviously included all of the concrete stuff of reality, and the emergent human characteristics. The power of Intention is a necessary inference from the observation of creative teleological progress in evolution. But,no, I don't know what the Omega Point will be.Those perceptions, beliefs, desires and intentions provide for a basic duality of the intentionality of the mental: the duality between mind-to-world and world-to-mind. — 3017amen
My bias is that physics, especially QM, is too often grist used in the nonsense mill - some of it interesting nonsense, but still nonsense! If it's a nonsense game, then let play who will, keeping in mind it's entertainment.
I do not find the book on Amazon - why not? Where/how did you read it?
which category people feel ... if people feel t
— Gary Enfield
Never mind feelings. Can you serve here any tempting morsel of the author's thinking, or evidence that he's not in the entertainment business? Any of its substance?
You/he mentions Bell's theorem. By reference or does he explain it and work it out? If the latter and he did a good job, then you ought to have a decent understanding of it, especially the "loophole free" phrase, its meaning and significance. — tim wood
Not all QM physicists agree on the whole post modern interpretation. — christian2017
It initially puts a lot of store on the issue of causality vs perceived randomness & spontaneity, as indicated by many findings from Quantum Mechanics. — christian2017
The author suggests only 3 possibilities:-...
1. A hidden variable/cause
2. True Spontaneity – something happens without a cause
3. True Randomness - different outcomes for no reason – ie. without a cause. — christian2017
It initially puts a lot of store on the issue of causality vs perceived randomness & spontaneity, as indicated by many findings from Quantum Mechanics.
— christian2017
The author suggests only 3 possibilities:-...
1. A hidden variable/cause
2. True Spontaneity – something happens without a cause
3. True Randomness - different outcomes for no reason – ie. without a cause.
— christian2017
These three are language's - philosophy's - attempt to corral the real, in this case QM, and QM doesn't yet corral. Bell experiments to date rule out #1 - that being what the later tests were testing. #s 2 and 3 are objectionable for "without a cause." The word "cause" itself requiring exhaustive definition before sense can be made of it. In a sense we're on a drunkard's search wrt QM. That leaves us nowhere, but the nowhere is, for now, a fact.
In any case and not just this one, I accept that science and philosophy are connected by "silken ties.., And only by one's going slightly taut... Is of the slightest bondage made aware." (pace, Robert. Frost). But that otherwise are different. Feynman on this, "If you think you understand QM, then you don't."
Your author is trying. That puts him into the category of entertainment - and selling books - but not science or philosophy. — tim wood
Two ways, I think both at work here. 1) The quote function quotes verbatim; if you want to correctly attribute a quote in a TPF quote, then you have to edit it. And 2) I messed up by putting two different quotes together and editing out the two middle quote parameters, inadvertently associating the two - my bad.I don't know how those quotes got attached to my name. — christian2017
I think you got it. Some topics cannot be properly represented - or understood - in some kinds of discussions.Perhaps you can restate what you were saying unpacked more. — christian2017
But the point made in the book, (and I think it is correct), is that each formula (other than those applying probabilities), will only lead to one inevitable outcome from any specific start point. That is Determinism. — Gary Enfield
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.