In practise the math always refers to something. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's fair. I didn't actually think you were making an argument, it just didn't know where you were coming from. To me it looked like you had misunderstood the intention of my quote. — Apustimelogist
But math itself does not refer. — fishfry
I don't believe all information in the universe is predictable because of heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Sure 99% of things can be non random but even if the fundamental 1% is that throws a huge spanner in the works — Benj96
No. No one says that "random" (here I am speaking your language) occurrences are unanalyzable. The difficulty we face is with precision. All data are analyzable, but not all data can be analyzed with precision. That is the difference.If randomness is born from the very fundamentals of physics (which quantum physics seems to suggest), then even if everything from that point onwards is deterministic, explicable and predictable, the underlying origin is still random and unpredictable.
In that case randomness would appear to trump the determined and explicable, the patterned. If we cannot know exactly where particles will appear or annihilate but only give a statistical wave function of the distribution of possible locations, that would entail a trickle up effect of integral chaos within the system. — Benj96
I don't agree with the use of random here. Stochastic phenomena are just simply not precise (this is the word I was looking for) as an analysis. Commonly, (and I say erroneously) it is the precision upon which we judge whether something is random, or in the case of Heisenberg, uncertain. But to further judge a phenomena as undetermined is really troubling. — L'éléphant
I couldn't have said it better.The appearance of randomness is created by the system which analyzes, it is not a feature of the thing being analyzed. That the analyzing system does not apprehend the patterns being searched for and produces the conclusion of "random", is an indication that the system is not properly formulated for the application it is put to. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree with this. The appearance of randomness is created by the system which analyzes, it is not a feature of the thing being analyzed. — Metaphysician Undercover
to further judge a phenomena as undetermined is really troubling. — L'éléphant
The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy. It conflicts with the (realist) view that the Universe exists "out there" independent of all acts of observation. In contrast Neils Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature... In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word "phenomenon". In today's words Bohr's point - and the central point of quantum theory - can be put into a single, simple sentence. "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon". It is wrong to speak of the "route" of the photon in the experiment of the beam splitter. It is wrong to attribute a tangibility to the photon in all its travel from the point of entry to its last instant of flight. A phenomenon is not yet a phenomenon until it has been brought to a cloase by an irreversible act of amplfification such as ...the triggering of a photodetector. In broader terms, we find that nature at the quantum level is not a machine that goes its inexorable way. Instead, what answer we get depends on the question we put, the experiment we arrange, the registering device we choose. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to happen.
It's an open question, but ontological randomness is at least logically possible, as far as we know. — fishfry
Ontological randomness may be logically possible but it's philosophically repugnant. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem being that if something is deemed as random, it is in that sense unintelligible. So if something is deemed as ontologically random, and it is considered to be unintelligible, then there is no will to attempt at figuring it out. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now the problem is that if something appears to be random there is no way of knowing whether it is epistemologically random, or ontologically random, because of the unintelligibility of it. — Metaphysician Undercover
So we won't know which until we figure it out, therefore we must assume it to be epistemologically random. — Metaphysician Undercover
And even if it is ontologically random, we will still never know that this is the case, so we will always have to assume that it is epistemologically random, and try to figure it out. The category of "ontological randomness" is absolutely useless. — Metaphysician Undercover
Striking that he used the same word you used, repugnant. But repugnance is not a logically argument, and what's repugnant in 1733 may turn out to be exactly what's needed to model general relativity in 1915. You never know. — fishfry
In this sense you are putting the idea of a random universe in the same category of solipsism. You can't prove it's false, but it's pointless to believe it because it leads nowhere. Therefore we should reject it on that basis. They're both essentially nihilistic ideas. — fishfry
In any event, I conclude that it's still logically possible that the true nature of the universe, if there even is such a thing, is random. And then we can still wonder ... how does all this apparent order arise from underlying randomness? So the philosophers would still have something useful to do, even in a fully random world. — fishfry
information" in this case, so that the unintelligible is adequately hidden within what is proposed as intelligible, and it will appear like you are saying something intelligent. — Metaphysician Undercover
I use the term "information" myself because I think it is useful and has its own flavour of characteristics outside of just energy transfer or material arrangements. — Benj96
Perhaps it's better to ask someone to clarify how they use a seemingly ambiguous term- because the ambiguity rarely comes from the user of the word. They usually know exactly how they're using it. Therefore ambiguity is more based on the interpreter which may not be sure what thr details of their definition are. — Benj96
That "flavour of characteristics" is what I call ambiguity. Your use of this word conflicts with the idea you expressed above, about using well defined words with less baggage. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your whole argument for less ambiguity is based on an impractical desire for words to be absolutely concrete and defined. — Benj96
Both of you may be correct. You're just focusing on different aspects of the Uncertainty problem. seems to be assuming that the world itself is fundamentally stochastic, while seems to be saying that the uncertainty is an observer problem. In truth, the answer to the "troubling" emotion caused by the random appearance of quantum phenomena may be to do as the quantum pioneers did : accept the inherent limitations of both observer and object.I don't believe all information in the universe is predictable because of heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Sure 99% of things can be non random but even if the fundamental 1% is that throws a huge spanner in the works — Benj96
I don't agree with the use of random here. Stochastic phenomena are just simply not precise (this is the word I was looking for) as an analysis. Commonly, (and I say erroneously) it is the precision upon which we judge whether something is random, or in the case of Heisenberg, uncertain. But to further judge a phenomena as undetermined is really troubling. — L'éléphant
Surely a lot of these problems go away if you concede that nature contains an element of spontaneity, as well as patterns which we characterise as "laws". — Wayfarer
It is not useful to assume spontaneity, just like it is not useful to assume randomness. — Metaphysician Undercover
there is an inherent element of unpredictability at the most basic strata of nature. — Wayfarer
"Repugnant", is a commonly used word in philosophy. The argument I gave is logical, but what is concluded is that the assumption, "there is ontological randomness" is philosophically repugnant, because it would be counter-productive to the desire to know. Therefore it's more like a moral argument. The desire to know is good. The assumption of ontological randomness hinders the desire to know. Therefore that assumption is bad and one ought not accept it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since the argument concerns an attitude, the philosophical attitude, or desire to know, you're right to say that it is an argument concerning "feelings". But that's what morality consists of, and having the right attitude toward knowledge of the universe is a very important aspect of morality. This is where "God" enters the context, "God" is assumed to account for the intelligibility of things which appear to us to be unintelligible, thereby encouraging us to maintain faith in the universe's ability to be understood. Notice how faith is not certainty, and the assumption that the universe is intelligible is believed as probable, through faith — Metaphysician Undercover
Not only is it pointless to believe it, but I would say it is actually negative. Choosing the direction that leads nowhere is actually bad when there are good places to be going to. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree that it is very important to leave as undecided, anything which is logically possible, until it is demonstrated as impossible. Notice what I argue against is the assumption of real randomness, that is completely different from the possibility of real randomness. — Metaphysician Undercover
That we ought to leave logical possibilities undecided was the point I argued Michael on the infinite staircase thread. Michael argued that sort of supertask is impossible, but I told him the impossibility needed to be demonstrated, and his assumption of impossibility was based in prejudice. — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe that paradoxes such as Zeno's demonstrate an incompatibility between empirical knowledge, and what is logically possible. — Metaphysician Undercover
Most people will accept the conventions of empirical knowledge, and argue that the logically possible which is inconsistent with empirical knowledge is really impossible, based on that prejudice. But I've learned through philosophy to be skeptical of what the senses show us, therefore empirical knowledge in general, and to put more faith and trust in reason. So, to deal with the logical possibility presented in that thread, we must develop a greater intellectual understanding of the fundamental principles, space and time, rather than appeal to empirical knowledge. Likewise, here, to show that the logical possibility of ontological randomness is really impossible, requires a greater understanding of the universe in general. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. Pierce seemed to be comfortable with flexible fundamental Chance, working in opposition to mechanical cause/effect Necessity*1. Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance. Although some might prefer that nothing is certain. Anyway, that may be why Einstein thought Quantum theory was missing some hidden variables*2, that would cancel-out undetermined Randomness (essential uncertainty) and justify absolute Determinism (mathematical certainty).The philosophical point about sub-atomic physics is mainly that it torpedoed the notion of an ultimately-existing material point-particle - 'the atom' of classical thought. C S Pierce, with his 'tychism', would have been perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty principle. But for those seeking the atom as a kind of bedrock foundation of reality - no joy. And it is amazingly difficult for a lot of people to cope with that.
By the way, I love Zizek's take on this. He says that when God was programming the universe, like when programmers create background scenery on a video game, he thought 'why should I bother programming the atom? People are too stupid to see down to that level'. He left it undetermined. But then we out-smarted God - we caught 'God with his pants down', so to speak. — Wayfarer
Although I assumed I knew what you were referring to in the OP, I also think has a good point. Perhaps most of the never-ending argumentation on this forum hinges on ambiguity in language. That's why Voltaire challenged, "If you want to converse with me, first define your terms". Verbal precision is difficult, but not "impractical".That "flavour of characteristics" is what I call ambiguity. Your use of this word conflicts with the idea you expressed above, about using well defined words with less baggage. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your whole argument for less ambiguity is based on an impractical desire for words to be absolutely concrete and defined. — Benj96
Historically, Luck does play a role in scientific discoveries. But, I assume the pragmatic scientists don't like (metaphysical attitude) to depend on fickle Luck or capricious Serendipity.Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance. — Gnomon
That's metaphysics not science. — Wayfarer
'I cannot believe that God plays dice', said Einstein, in response to the discovery of the so-called 'quantum leap'. (Bohr used to say 'stop trying to tell God how to manage the Universe'.) But it is a known fact, as is the stochastic nature of radioactive decay. That doesn't mean that maggots spring fully formed from damp cloth, of course, but that there is an inherent element of unpredictability at the most basic strata of nature. — Wayfarer
I can agree with your reasoning that one "ought" not to accept it, but the reason is extra-logical. That is, if we are going by pure logic, you have not argued against it. It's like solipsism. Can't refute but pointless to believe it. — fishfry
But consider: If the world is not random, then it's determined. And is that not equally repugnant? Nothing matters because we have no choice. — fishfry
God transcends logic, fair enough. But again, that's not a logical argument. — fishfry
Here you are arguing that just because an idea is repugnant is no logical reason to reject it! So you should apply the same reasoning to randomness. — fishfry
I agree with you there. I agree with most of what you wrote. Still I do want to understand why you see that Michael is wrong to say that supertasks are logically impossible, when they are merely repugnant; yet you seem to reject that same reasoning when applied to randomness. — fishfry
Also, don't you think determinism is at least as repugnant as randomness? — fishfry
What Heisenberg had done....was to come up with an idea too sexy to stay confined to the physics world. As Mr. Lindley points out, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is now freely bandied about in nonscientific contexts, from literary theory to television dialogue. He cites an instance when Heisenberg was glibly name-dropped on “The West Wing,” in an anecdote about a film crew’s changing an event simply by observing it.
If Heisenberg’s idea “has become a touchstone, a badge of authority, for a certain class of ideas and speculations,” Mr. Lindley says, perhaps that is because it can be used to make scientific truth sound less than all-powerful. Treated that way, “the uncertainty principle makes scientific knowledge itself less daunting to the nonscientists and more like the slippery, elusive kind of knowing we daily grapple with.”
But the real uncertainty principle is more precise than that. It states that while some phenomena produce a definable range of possible outcomes, it is impossible to infer from the outcome which single unique event actually produced it. This has evolved, Mr. Lindley says, into “a practical, workaday definition of the uncertainty principle that most physicists continue to find convenient and at least moderately comprehensible — as long as they choose not to think too hard about the still unresolved philosophical or metaphysical difficulties it throws up.” — NY Times Review of Lindley
As already argued in this thread, above, the so-called "stochastic nature" of radioactive decay, is best understood as a feature of the means employed to understand it, rather than as a feature of the named activity itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.