pouët.net

Sim, quantum physics does not concern itself with the world as you know
it, but at infinitely small scales. The deterministic intuitions you
gather from your real world medium scale experiences do not apply to
*real* phenomenons we see in the infinitely small.

Einstein's most famous work, relativity, deals with the infinitely big,
and is similarly unintuitive and not experienced directly by yourself.
He refused to believe that quantum physics were valid when he uttered
that quote. Search on the net for it.

--

Phred, as for randomness, don't be caught into thinking it is a "joker"
that produced when we can't understand things. In the case of evolution
that you suggested, one thing to note is that the randomness you talk
about is not the most important thing in it. It's maybe one-half of the
whole deal, as we could certainly apply the evolution mechanism in the
abscence of "random" mutations. In evolution we are still dealing with a
scale where we could still be trying to describe the mutations
deterministically. It's just that we wouldn't have enough hardware to
record every movements in every cell composing every animal in the whole
world ;)

Hmm. I just thought about one thing. Once I programmed some genetic algorithmes and there we must specify the probability of mutations, Xovers, probab. of replacement in new genomes etc. And as we know it, the idea behind it is stricte probabilistic, but... The final result, as we made some *conditions* is predictable in the big scale. I mean it will not, the result, be the same, might be pretty close to each other (as for numbers), but not the same. But in the big scale we have deterministic result, cause it gaves us what we wanted (under conditions!). So from probability do we have determinism (with a big tolerance)?

Determinism means that knowing all the parameters at time t, we know all
the parameters at time t+1.

I dont think there is a problem with the universe explanation "oh well randomness ended up creating all this" cause I dont think its really randomness; its just the simultaneous (all planets, galaxies etc) explorations of all...ehmm... say MANY possible paths, but still with deterministic rules, so at some place it produces interesting results (from OUR point of view) , and that being not surprising at all given all the failed attemps;

Regarding the the pseudo-randomness that generates all these DIFFERENT possibilities (you might ask "how to generate these differents attemps), i think its just those deterministic rules that, with some given init params, will create some very complicated evolution that will APPEAR to be chaotic (at our scale) and generate all the diffrnt scenarios. Its up to us to find those rules, with xprimntation, deeper and deeper, until... until what? whats the limit? strange... When I hear about quantum physics noneterminism or chaos , well, I dont know... I think science would lose its soul if it denied its first role of prediction of the real world, of deterministic modelling...

But time will probably tell...And also, theres that problem with tese init params;) hey, who sets them?:) even with complicated rule,s perfecly homogeneous init params would have triggered a boring bigbang...


Speaking of losing its soul, about good and evil, the game "messiah" has has quite interesting themes in its storyboard , that relates to the topic, dont you think?
(and still, i would like to hear a believer explaining how he can cope with the objection "that day, that date, that amount of thousands of people were slaughtered; some believed, some not; some were good, some less; some were young, some were old; and still it happened. how can you have faith in something? how can you accept to pray god and to receive from him, and be priviledged, and know he wants that? You would have to admit he wants that... If I were forced to believe by an evidence(which would have sto be STRONG!, i mean MRI s "limit"), then i would think okay, youve won , but still, you dont care for everyone -or youre not that allmighty- )

have a nice day!

funny head (don´t know how to call you...):

You are not completely right here. Determinism doesn´t mean that you can calculate the future from the past, but only that the future is determinied by the past.

There is a big difference. Since Goedel (or was it Turing?) we know that there are problems that are not algorithmically solvable. Indeed it is quite possible that if the world is completely deterministic, you still cannot predict the future even if you know all of the past and all the rules.

A professor at our university works in this field. It is called deterministic chaos theory, and it supposes that the world is a bit like a fractal, it´s made up of simple rules, but still there are points in the fractal where you cannot determine its value.

I'm keeping my definition of determinism thank you :) If you can find a different definition in the context of physics I'll welcome any reference to it.

But you are then making a huuuuuge jump here. You are assuming that the world is "solvable" by a turing machine, and thus invokes gödel to prove that the world is not solvable. One problem: there is no proof that we can represent the universe using a turing machine or through an algorithm.

You misunderstood me a little bit. I just wanted to point out that you wrote: "Determinism means that knowing all the parameters at time t, _WE_ know all
the parameters at time t+1."

And I thought you meant us humans with "we". And I wanted to point out that even if the world is determined, this doesn´t mean that a human can calculate the future.

But well, this is also only true if we suppose that the only problem humans can solve are those representable by a turing machine... I didn´t notice that, thanks.

The interesting thing is that non-determinism is already
widely encountered. Precisely, properties of the quantum physics model
break determinism. For example, we can't plot the trajectories of an
electron "around" its nucleus, as we can't know precisely both it's
position and its speed. (It is *not* because of an ability of our
current measurement instruments, but a property of the model!) It
doesn't prove much of course but is a fun thought experiment to
realize that quantum physics forbid an omniscient observer ;)

If the omniscient observer apply to it's own rules, like the laws of physics etc. But if it doesnt, i dont see the problem.

A year back i saw a program about particle acceleration. Some german scientists had in a huge P.A re-created bigbang with particles. and the scientist proudly said. WE have proven that no Omnipotent being is nbeccecery for creation....Riiiight.. FUnny how such an enlightened man, can look away from the fact that he himself press a button to make the experiment happen. But bigbang didnt need that "help" to get started ??

How about, the generel accept of the chain of events. i.e nothing happens in this world or universe, without being maipulated to do so. The leaves that moves thru our streets, is moved by the wind, that is caused by the etcc... But big bang didnt need an event to happen?`

Science have it's own dogmas, as you have demostrated by saying that something forbids an omniscient observer. you rule out something without all the facts present. Not very scientific if you ask me.

iblis: you're bang on with that one, but if you need somebody to press the button to get the big bang started, you have another problem. You then need another big bang, to create the place where the hand that pushed the button that started the big bang.

if you assume that the person pressing the button is infinite, and didn't start in some kind of bing-bang or similar, then what's wrong with thinking that the big bang was triggered by some earlier event, and the universe has been here forever? Then you don't need the omnipotent being to press the button.

Iblis, why are you attacking me? I specifically said it was a fun
thought experiment, not a scientific proof.

Is the law of gravity a dogma? (Does the apple stop falling when you
stop believing in it?) The only dogma in science as I already said is
the scientific method. (Experiment, Make a model, Confront the model
with the experiments, GOTO 10)

-- What I talked about (The collapse of the wavefunction brought about
by an observer) does hint though that an observer abiding by the
rules of our world cannot be "strongly" omniscient. (as in knowing
everything) --

knos: don't think you're quite right about the observer not being strongly omniscient. I think there are two possibilities:

1. There is no omniscient observer, therefore the observation does not affect anything
2. The observer is truely omniscient, observing every event, and therefore affecting every event. Therefore, the laws of physics as we know them incorporate the alterations, so we don't see them.

By the way the bigbang (afaik) is still not a certainty and is just one
of the many models. But in the big bang model, time didn't exist before
the big bang. Incidently, if time didn't exist, causality didn't exist
either as there was no "before": we can't theorize or model an original
cause. One can't even reason about a before in that model.

Analogies about the sensible world are all cute and all, but there is a
lot of valid stuff that go against them already. (Like the universality
of time)

No i dont. Because that is the be all end all. Infinity in lack of better words. The thing that just is. In existence and beyond.

You see what is really interresting about the matter is that both theories leave the viewer with a choice to either belive one of them, or discard the both of them. We cant prove what happened, or how, but we can belive... What made me sure i had found "answers" is stuff like this.

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation) before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing.  Will they not then believe?  "

1400 years ago they took big bang as a fact. why? because they could figure it out, at a time where most people thought the sky was white dots painted on an umbrella? No because they were told so... How did the author know?
Theres a lot of things like this, and somehow this 1400 y.o book comes up with answers always supported by "modern" science. i think that is really interresting.

Modern science was a bit longer to pick up on the idea mind you.

There is nothing wrong with thinking that big bang was triggered by an earlyer event. But would you give me a suggestion as to what that event was then?

Some believe that the universe has a cyclus of big bangs. like a loop going over and over. But that still fail to explain how it started...how did the loop start? Isnt it as naive to belive it was just there, as to belive God did it?

Funny man, sorry of you took it as an attack, that was not the intention. My sincere appology. And it wasnt aimed at you specifically, i just made my post with its start in what you wrote.

if we don't really know what is and what isn't we may as well go ahead and define that everything exists in some sense. now, apparently we are somewhere in everything. thus the part of the world around us works precisely so that it enables our existence.

a=a is all we need to know basically...

btw..thanks yall for the best, most interresting thread on pouet.net ever :)

iblis: what's the 1400 year old book? Be interesting to read :)

About the earlier event: well, no idea :) The 'laws of physics' were totally different, so it's kind of hard to understand. Perhaps one day some scientists can give us an explanation.

Btw, there is quite a lot of evidence for the big bang theory, such as the chemical make-up of early stars, the presence of an expanding sphere of radiation at the edge of the universe etc.

And about it being naive to thing that there was a chain of big bangs, or god pushing the button... well, neither make any sense to me really. God pushing a button... well what made god then? And the chain of bangs... well, why? And again, where did it come from? The point is, it's well beyond my understanding :) Perhaps beyond anyone, and perhaps it always will be. Religion gives an easy answer, perhaps the right one. Science gives half of a difficult answer, but at least a lot of the theories have some physical evidence. But of course, nobody has managed to disprove god :) And the science route looks to me like it'll follow events back forever, and never give a real answer. So I'll just continue wondering, learning more of science + religion for now.

hehe that old book is called Al'Quraan mate ;)
and what made me wonder is how the h3ll, they knew?? I can give you a few other examples to ponder about from it, if you like?!

Fire away :)

First some language explanation. If you look at the first verse i posted, about matter being cloved asunder. Cloved asunder is the best english word to describe the original arab ones used. But the arab word has a deeper meaning. The word used meant litteraly something that was torn apart by great force, and devided into small bits that accelereated fast, and then slowly come to a stop. That is why the english translations are a bit "lacking" and may seem overly simple. But i will try to do my best to explain the "original" meaning of the verses i post.

"When the sky is torn apart, so it was (like) a red rose, like ointment." Quran[Surah55:Ayah37]
The word sky is correct, but the original word contained more information...It is, a small invisible part of the sky.
Another translation of the same text says.
"When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint."
Again the translater need another word, but fail to find it.
So what is the big deal...well,, personlly i dont put much into "marvels" but i must admit that after reading the above, both in english and its original state, this image made me look twice.

http://www.submission.org/miracle/nebula.html

there is a lot of stuff like this. and ofcourse you shall take it with a grain of salt. THis is no proof of the quraan but something to make us think twice about it.

Iblis: The cyclus of BB. I read in some Hindu religion book, that the Universe has no start and no end. And the loop between the those BB 'points' is because "the God wants to 'check yourself again' ". And again, and again. I was shocked when I read that, since I had some spiritual 'knowledge' to believe in it. Sometimes I am agaist that hypothese. But in generally... As god gave us a soul and a 'free will', those who want to follow 'God's rules' will pass the 'examine'. But what are the real rules, etc, etc dunno.

Those old manuscripts. Al'Quraan - pls, I do not know arabic letters ( see al-quraan) =/. I am interested too. How the h3ll they knew? Some scientist say that our civilisation is 7th or 6th on the planet...

I propose to read something about "Dead Sea Scrolls". That is interesting.

Determinism as I understand it in the philosophical context is basically believing that all events are preceded by external causes. Everything we do and think is a link in a chain, with a cause and an effect either side of it. But I would not dispute Knos's interpretation of determinism (in it's physics context).

I do think it is possible to calculate the future to a certain degree. I.e. we can predict that fire will burn us, or that dark clouds will result in rain, or that night follows day (in most countries anyway). The reason we can predict these things is because we are familiar with the cause and effect ritual.

Many of these things we take for granted today were illogical some years ago. We know that a round wheel works better than a square one, but that's because we have seen it work and seen how it works.

Iblis: interesting that one. Like many others, it can be read in different ways of course. It says 'our proofs are in the horizons' or similar, so it sounds a lot like people witnessed a supernova or something. Of course, other things could explain it (eg. a major volcanic eruption would make the sky red, and with the clouds could well look like the sky had been torn apart). Actually, I like reading of stuff like this. It's thought-provoking however you look at it :)

There was a similar thing I saw on tv, where a 500 year old map showed the coast of antartica (the land coast under the ice, which can only be seen from space).