Model Of Determinism.

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

It is important to note that I will not be going into any of the math behind quantum principles. I don't know it well enough to explain it to other people and I don't think it has much relevance to this discussion.

The Copenhagen Interpretation

This is the most popularly held view of the implications of quantum theory. The basic consensus arrived at by Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg is that the wave function is a description of the observers knowledge of the to-be-observed system. The wave function is not taken to be an objectively real thing necessarily, but merely a description of what can be known of the system. The quantum system can display wave like properties or particle like properties and whichever is solely dependent on what apparatus the observer chooses to observe the system. The quantum system is not said to be either a particle or a wave, only that it displays these properties under certain measurements. All systems are quantum systems, but the quantum effects of the system are dependent on Planck's Constant which is extremely small, and so are only apparent in systems whose size approach this number.

Ensemble Interpretation

The Ensemble Interpretation is basically the same as the Copenhagen Interpretation but says that the wave function only applies to groups of similar phenomena and not individual particles.

Many Worlds Interpretation

The many worlds interpretation assumes that the wave function is an objective description of reality and that the collapse of the function at the point of observation is an actual split of possibilities into parallel universes. Under this assumption, all possible outcomes of the wave function do happen, but the act of observation limits the observer to just one of the possible outcomes.


Alright so; none of these interpretations say anything about "random". The main insight that quantum mechanics offers about reality is that no observation can be objectively discrete from the observer. In other words, our perception of reality cannot be isolated from the way in which we observe it. To me, this seems intuitive but it is a departure from the commonly held scientific view that existed before these things were discovered. The typical objective and passive perspective that science would like to adopt is fundamentally untenable. One cannot observe a system without 'looking at it' and looking at something is in itself an effect. If you have read Kant, this is basically what he is talking about when he says that we cannot know "the thing in itself", we can only know things about it based on the way it and we interact with each other. The general rule in particle physics is to not talk about particles as discrete and objective entities since those cannot be perceived, but only as the relationships that they have with other systems.

The perceived randomness in quantum mechanics comes from the impossibility of knowing the conditions of a system without observing it, and the inevitable effect that observation will have on the system. Classical physics will assume certain properties of a system because these properties can be observed ahead of time, and that observation has a negligible effect on the behavior of the system. When dealing with quantum systems, this effect is not negligible and in fact can alter the system drastically. Because it is impossible to know what exact state the system is in before it is observed, it is impossible to objectively determine how it will behave once it has been observed.

However, the development of the wave function can be determined and is not random. This is why we are able to accurately predict the way a system will evolve without knowing the exact initial conditions.

In short, quantum mechanics recognizes the fundamental limitations of how we interact with reality. It doesn't say anything about what actually exists, or even whether anything objectively exists. It merely explains the way quantum interactions evolve. It recognizes that it is impossible to know a system without observing it, and the observation expands/alters the system that is being observed.

Implications for Determinism

Quantum mechanics essentially puts determinism squarely within the realm of metaphysics. Its not that it disproves determinism, it is that it disproves the assumption that it is possible to determine. In other words, quantum mechanics does not say that reality is fundamentally probablistic, only that by the very nature of interactions, it is impossible to know all the information contained within any system. There is no outside perspective that one can assume to see all aspects of a phenomenon because they are intrinsically a part of the phenomenon through the act of observing it.

That simply isn't true. It isn't creating anything from nothing, and it isn't magic. Its science.

You are acting like the scale of objects does not matter at all, but that is a totally illogical standpoint. If you look at a table, it doesn't move, yet all the atoms it is made up of is constantly moving, and the entire planet is spinning you around like rag doll. To say that size and perception is totally irrlevant is silly.

You are basically saying if one atom can move within the table, then there is a chance that the entire table could move on its own. It should be pretty clear where this logical fails.

You react as if the entire world is so fragile that you can pluck the smallest of strings and the entire world would unravel. The truth however, is that it wouldn't.

I want you to try to do something for me Universal. For one moment, assume that tiny subatomic particles could move at random. Just put your complaints aside for a second, and pretend that it was true. What visible result would that have on us? None at all. Assuming it was true, it would cause no visble result because they are to small to effect us. They can zip around randomly all they want and its not going to do anything noticable.

If you do that, you would quickly realize that your arguement is purely illusionary. It simply an illogical statement. Sure its a fine opinion to hold, but its not based on any logical thought, facts or reason.

Actually, Alric; it is theoretically possible for macroscopic things to exhibit quantum type fluctuations, though it is incredibly (incredibly) unlikely. One example of a theorized example of this is Hawking Radiation. I know of a physics teacher that spent (or spends, I don't know if he still teaches) unusually large amounts of class walking into the wall trying to demonstrate that it is possible to tunnel. :cheeky:

Exactly, its so unlikely that it would never happen, and if it ever did, no one would believe the story anyway. So you can't really use the absense of it having every happened as proof of anything. Since you are unlikely to ever see it, and even if it really did happen you would never know.

Well, the consciousness dependent interpretations of quantum mechanics are consistent with the claims of yogic traditions that it is possible to fly, walk through walls, travel instantly to any point in time and space, etc. etc.

I feel like I'm starting to come off as a dick who just wants to contradict everyone so I think it is important at this point to make it clear that my entire point is that determinism, materialism, free will, spiritualism, etc. are all topics of metaphysics and none of them are inherently more scientific than any other. There is nothing that we have observed in the physical sciences that definitively proves or otherwise confirms any of these claims one way or the other.

Well that is why we are on the philosophy board, and not the science one. Though I think free will can be shown scientifically. Since it is observable, that people can and do make choices.

Quote:

---

We are talking about princples, and you said there is no such thing as "logical" at the level they are on. Thus, you are talking about principles that are not logical. Principles that are not logical are illogical.

---

Why have you just completely ignored my explanation? I'll try again. I suppose it's doing me some good having to put these arguments in their most basic forms, but please make more of a sincere effort to take in what I'm saying.

I'm talking about deductive arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_argument

In deductive arguments, you have a number of premises and you use various rules of inference to deduce logical conclusions.

However if you keep reducing these premises down to some basic premises you'll eventually get to a point where you have a set of premises which have no logical argument for them. They just are and you have to deal with that.

It's a lot like mathematics. You can boil every geometric proof for instance down to a set of geometric axioms, none of which you can prove (i.e. none of which is 'logical'), but are simply assumed. The canonical example here is of course Euclid's parallel postulate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

It turns out the only reason we thought the parallel postulate was true was based on a (false) induction from human experience. It was never actually 'logical' at all.

You can do this with all the geometric axioms. Take the axiom 'All right angles are equal to one another'. This is not logical in the sense that there is no deductive a priori argument you can give for it.

In the same way there's no logical reason that particles should behave according to probabilistic functions, in exactly the same way that there's no logical reason that they should behave according to non-probabilistic functions.

All we can do as humans therefore is to observe how things are; and they are probabilistic.

Quote:

---

Matterial objects exist, and they exist with varying amounts of matter. Thus, matter exists with varying mass. Therefore, mass exists.

---

Obviously this isn't a logical argument. You've used the existence of matter in your premise (material objects exist) and hence 'shown' through convoluted wordplay that matter exists (i.e. we have a cyclical argument). This nicely demonstrates my point:

I could just as well say that a quantity known as 'gloop' exists which lets objects pass through other less gloopy objects. The argument for gloop being logical runs thus:

Gloopy objects exist, and they exist with varying amounts of gloop. Thus, matter exists with varying gloop. Therefore, gloop exists.

As we well know however gloop does not exist.

Clearly the only reason we ever though mass existed was based on human observation, and conversely for gloop. The logical arguments above are bunk, they just restate the premise. There is no logical reason that mass exists, and no logical reason that gloop doesn't. It's simply the way things are.

Quote:

---

randomness/causelessness

---

I explained already that these two things are not the same. In quantum physics just as in classical physics we can follow the line of causality from one event to the next. Quantum randomness is not chaos, it is a precisely defined mathematical thing which leads to macroscopic approximation of non-randomness in a way that is well understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Not really.

You can have probabilistic chaotic systems as well as deterministic ones.

---

Yes, exactly, BUT. In the real, physical system we live in, theoretic-chaos is an extent of determinism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also people, fuck the shut up. Determinism is not about human beings determining things. Determinism is about things being already predetermined by the laws of the system -- to make it short, determinism is true whenever you have a system which is not random.

Just because we don't understand/can't tell how something behaves doesn't mean it's random. Just because you don't see the nickel under the carpet doesn't mean it isn't there.

Einstein tried to explain this using the watch analogy. Juts because you don't see the watch working, doesn't mean it works randomly/magically.

Xaqaria, thank you for illustrating how so many quantum physicists have taken true data and formed an illogical conclusion. I agree with the raw experimental findings and the idea of human inability to make totally accurate predictions, but I do not agree with the common misconception that the data and the human inability to predict it proves randomness. It is in fact a common analysis among quantum physicists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That simply isn't true. It isn't creating anything from nothing, and it isn't magic. Its science.

You are acting like the scale of objects does not matter at all, but that is a totally illogical standpoint. If you look at a table, it doesn't move, yet all the atoms it is made up of is constantly moving, and the entire planet is spinning you around like rag doll. To say that size and perception is totally irrlevant is silly.

You are basically saying if one atom can move within the table, then there is a chance that the entire table could move on its own. It should be pretty clear where this logical fails.

You react as if the entire world is so fragile that you can pluck the smallest of strings and the entire world would unravel. The truth however, is that it wouldn't.

I want you to try to do something for me Universal. For one moment, assume that tiny subatomic particles could move at random. Just put your complaints aside for a second, and pretend that it was true. What visible result would that have on us? None at all. Assuming it was true, it would cause no visble result because they are to small to effect us. They can zip around randomly all they want and its not going to do anything noticable.

If you do that, you would quickly realize that your arguement is purely illusionary. It simply an illogical statement. Sure its a fine opinion to hold, but its not based on any logical thought, facts or reason.

---

I did not say that the specific randomness principle that is supposed to apply to particles would apply in exactly the same way to larger objects. I said that the more basic principle that it is possible at all ever for anything to be uncaused would make the universe turn into a carnival of absurdity. Understand the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Why have you just completely ignored my explanation? I'll try again. I suppose it's doing me some good having to put these arguments in their most basic forms, but please make more of a sincere effort to take in what I'm saying.

I'm talking about deductive arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_argument

In deductive arguments, you have a number of premises and you use various rules of inference to deduce logical conclusions.

---

The fact that premises are used in arguments without arguments for them being used in the arguments does not mean that logic does not apply to them. It does. It is just not stated. Postulates, theorems, corolloraries, theories, laws, etc. shorten arguments. They are supported and accepted such that they themselves do not have to be argued for every time they are used in an argument.

And stop acting like a twitty little 15 year old shit all the time. I see you talking that way on a regular basis to people who are not even trying to argue. It is so stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

However if you keep reducing these premises down to some basic premises you'll eventually get to a point where you have a set of premises which have no logical argument for them. They just are and you have to deal with that.

It's a lot like mathematics. You can boil every geometric proof for instance down to a set of geometric axioms, none of which you can prove (i.e. none of which is 'logical'), but are simply assumed. The canonical example here is of course Euclid's parallel postulate.

---

Logical arguments can still be made in support of the premises even though they are not involved in the actual proofs. Theorems and postulates have their own separate pieces of legitimate support, and they have been established to limit the amount of text in proofs. It is not the case that logic does not apply to them. It does. It is just not illustrated in proofs where they are used. Nothing just is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It turns out the only reason we thought the parallel postulate was true was based on a (false) induction from human experience. It was never actually 'logical' at all.

---

No, the parallel postulate is still alive and well. Curved planes are not actual planes. Also, you are arguing with every geometry course in the civilized world. Good luck with that daring endeavor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You can do this with all the geometric axioms. Take the axiom 'All right angles are equal to one another'. This is not logical in the sense that there is no deductive a priori argument you can give for it.

---

A thing equals itself. That is the most basic fact of reality. If something meets the definition of right angle, it has the same measure as every other thing that meets the definition of right angle.

Why do you want to take your new age magic views in this direction again? You knew it would start a separate argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

In the same way there's no logical reason that particles should behave according to probabilistic functions, in exactly the same way that there's no logical reason that they should behave according to non-probabilistic functions.

---

Probability is only relevant to human understanding. It is not relevant to the universe itself. Everything that has ever happened had to happen. We talk about probability only because of human uncertainty and not true iffiness that applies beyond the human mind. The future is not uncertain. Humans are uncertain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

All we can do as humans therefore is to observe how things are; and they are probabilistic.

---

Only to the human mind. That is what so many quantum physicists don't get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Obviously this isn't a logical argument. You've used the existence of matter in your premise (material objects exist) and hence 'shown' through convoluted wordplay that matter exists (i.e. we have a cyclical argument). This nicely demonstrates my point:

I could just as well say that a quantity known as 'gloop' exists which lets objects pass through other less gloopy objects. The argument for gloop being logical runs thus:

---

You didn't challenge me to make a logical argument for the existence of matter. You challenged me to make a logical argument for the existence of mass. If I was supposed to assume that the existence of matter has not been proven, it was up to you to state that. You did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Clearly the only reason we ever though mass existed was based on human observation, and conversely for gloop. The logical arguments above are bunk, they just restate the premise. There is no logical reason that mass exists, and no logical reason that gloop doesn't. It's simply the way things are.

---

Human observation and data of course play a logical role in the establishment of premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I explained already that these two things are not the same. In quantum physics just as in classical physics we can follow the line of causality from one event to the next. Quantum randomness is not chaos, it is a precisely defined mathematical thing which leads to macroscopic approximation of non-randomness in a way that is well understood.

---

As long as you are talking about the limits of human prediction, I agree with you. What I do not agree with is the conclusion that there is no definite way a particle has to act. If you don't support the latter, then we don't have a disagreement on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just because we don't understand/can't tell how something behaves doesn't mean it's random. Just because you don't see the nickel under the carpet doesn't mean it isn't there.

Einstein tried to explain this using the watch analogy. Juts because you don't see the watch working, doesn't mean it works randomly/magically.

---

Amen! :pope:

There seems to be a major misconception going on here.

Randomness is not the same as probability.

One of the fundamental things in QM is about probability, not randomness.

Xaqaria covered some of it in his post about interpretations of QM.

Everything exist as a probability distribution until an observation is made, the wave-function collapse to a specific physical state. This applies to all scales, microscopic and macroscopic. Probability does not mean randomness. The probability of any event is based on causality, the past do matter.

The system is not deterministic, because the wave-function collapses at the moment the observation is made, only at this time does the does the physical state arise, and not before.

If there is no observation of the physical object, it does not exist in its physical state, but only as a probability distribution. It is consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave-function. This has been shown in a modified version of the classical double-slit experiment, which I have written a paper on.

In short, the experiment shows that the decision of whether to use the which-path information available changes the the outcome of something that has already happened, but since the wave-function of that happening has yet not been collapsed, one can manipulate the information in such a way that the outcome is dependent of the conscious observer.

Quote:

---

Yes, exactly, BUT. In the real, physical system we live in, theoretic-chaos is an extent of determinism.

---

Explain what you mean, an 'extent' of determinism, at the moment I don't know what you're trying to say. Do you mean determinism 'allows' for chaos?

Quote:

---

Also people, fuck the shut up. Determinism is not about human beings determining things. Determinism is about things being already predetermined by the laws of the system -- to make it short, determinism is true whenever you have a system which is not random.

Just because we don't understand/can't tell how something behaves doesn't mean it's random. Just because you don't see the nickel under the carpet doesn't mean it isn't there.

Einstein tried to explain this using the watch analogy. Juts because you don't see the watch working, doesn't mean it works randomly/magically.

---

Nobody was talking about humans determining things.

I thought Einstein had been proven wrong; hidden variable theories have been shown to be incapable of producing the observations of quantum mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I thought Einstein had been proven wrong; hidden variable theories have been shown to be incapable of producing the observations of quantum mechanics.

---

Nah. Just because you can't replicate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist/isn't true.

You have to understand that to observe something is to alter it. You can't see how a clock works without breaking it - but if you break it, you can't see it working. See the loop? It explains the problem with observing subatomic objects. Once again, just because you can't see it working doesn't mean it works randomly.

Quote:

---

The fact that premises are used in arguments without arguments for them being used in the arguments does not mean that logic does not apply to them. It does. It is just not stated. Postulates, theorems, corolloraries, theories, laws, etc. shorten arguments. They are supported and accepted such that they themselves do not have to be argued for every time they are used in an argument.

---

I know. I said that myself.

But by suggesting that there is no premise without a logical argument for it, you're suggesting you can iterate this process an infinite number of times, which is absurd.

Quote:

---

Why do you want to take your new age magic views in this direction again? You knew it would start a separate argument.

---

Firstly they're not new age, they're scientific. Don't lecture me about what 'the whole world says', I think I'll listen to my actual mathematics lecturers (who happen to be among the best mathematicians in the world).

I took it in this direction because it's a good example of how basic premises can't be proven or disproven, we can only go by observation.

You clearly don't like the example so another one is Newton's second law, F = ma. This basic truth can be used to deduce many things, but can't be deduced from any basic truths itself. We only believe it due to observation and, surprise surprise, it doesn't actually apply to scales outside of human experience.

Quote:

---

You didn't challenge me to make a logical argument for the existence of matter. You challenged me to make a logical argument for the existence of mass. If I was supposed to assume that the existence of matter has not been proven, it was up to you to state that. You did not.

---

There's clearly an issue here with the conflation of matter and mass. I therefore suggest dropping it, a better example would have been to ask you to prove that F = ma.

Quote:

---

Human observation and data of course play a logical role in the establishment of premises.

---

Exactly. Randomness is observed, so why not make randomness a premise.

Quote:

---

Nah. Just because you can't replicate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist/isn't true.

---

Huh?

Hidden variables can be shown to imply various quantum phenomena. We observe that other mutually exclusive quantum phenomena occur. Therefore hidden variables is not true.

(What did you mean by 'extent', btw?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Juts because you don't see the watch working, doesn't mean it works randomly/magically.

---

You completely missed the point of this analogy. The point that was being made was that through examinations of the watches function, one can infer all sorts of rules that govern the watch's behavior and these rules can be incredibly accurate at predicting future behavior, but at no point can we peel back the face of the watch to see if our ideas of how the watch works actually correspond to what is really inside the watch. This means that any set of rules that we come up with are inevitably only a construct of the mind that is used to predict future outcomes to varying degrees of accuracy. It is impossible to know how close our picture is to reality, only whether or not it is capable of prediction.

There are countless different sets of rules and ideas that we could come up with to explain the inner workings of the watch, and as long as they are all accurate at predicting future events, they are all equally true and untrue, even if they completely contradict each other (as long as the way they contradict each other is not in the results of their predictions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Amen! :pope:

---

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the reason why people have such a hard time discussing with you, UM (at least on here, I have no idea if you behave this way in person.) You follow your own beliefs so religiously and dogmatically that you seem completely incapable of even comprehending where you are wrong even when someone has plainly showed it to you.

I have an honest wonder, when was the last time you took or were even present in a geometry class? You call non-euclidean geometry "new age magic", and yet it has been well established for over 100 years, and it has been known that the actual geometric structure of space time is described by riemannian geometry for nearly that long. Are you really that out of touch?

You're "logical" argument for mass is also a perfect example of why you cannot be trusted as a judge of what is logical and what is not. Why does matter have mass? Your 'logical equation' goes something like this.

matter -> mass, therefore, mass because matter. You haven't shown why matter equals or exhibits the property of mass, you have only asserted that it does. The only reason why you think you know that it does is because you have observed it to be the case. What you presented is practically a text book example of begging the question.

These reasons among others are usually the factors that cause people to either speak to you like you are a child or throw up their arms and 'walk away'. You argue as if your own assertions are enough to prove your point and then act either smugly amused or condescendingly exasperated and just repeat yourself over and over again when no one else sees it that way. This is the way a child behaves.

The reality is, until you learn the basic rules of logic, you have no place arguing about whether or not an established and empirically verified school of science meets those standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I know. I said that myself.

But by suggesting that there is no premise without a logical argument for it, you're suggesting you can iterate this process an infinite number of times, which is absurd.

---

Eventually it gets traced back to pure observation of something very simple and so obvious that nobody even questions it, like the fact that one's own thoughts exist. The entire house of cards rests on such a premise. If the premise turns out to be wrong, then reality is not what we thought and everything we thought we knew was wrong. However, the randomness of particle behavior is not that type of premise. It is much more complex and questionable. Also, the idea involves identifiable inconsistencies with logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Firstly they're not new age, they're scientific. Don't lecture me about what 'the whole world says', I think I'll listen to my actual mathematics lecturers (who happen to be among the best mathematicians in the world).

---

Professors are usually crazy geniuses. I will never turn my analysis of reality upside down on the trust of a few professors. I have met plenty of intellectually dishonest professors too. Extreme intelligence very often does not result in true understanding of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I took it in this direction because it's a good example of how basic premises can't be proven or disproven, we can only go by observation.

---

No, we can also go by logic, just not at the most fundamental level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You clearly don't like the example so another one is Newton's second law, F = ma. This basic truth can be used to deduce many things, but can't be deduced from any basic truths itself. We only believe it due to observation and, surprise surprise, it doesn't actually apply to scales outside of human experience.
There's clearly an issue here with the conflation of matter and mass. I therefore suggest dropping it, a better example would have been to ask you to prove that F = ma.

---

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/3rdlaw.htm

http://mypages.iit.edu/~smile/guests/Newton98B3.pdf

I believe that everything that we do, have done, or will ever do can be conjectured using math if you knew the state of the universe at a particular moment. Everything in the universe is dependent on the vibration os strings. The strings can only vibrate one way according to physics, hence, everything that ever happened, is happening, or will ever happen was pre-decided at the instant of the big bang. Kind of a downer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the reason why people have such a hard time discussing with you, UM (at least on here, I have no idea if you behave this way in person.) You follow your own beliefs so religiously and dogmatically that you seem completely incapable of even comprehending where you are wrong even when someone has plainly showed it to you.

---

You know damn well that I have used a great deal of analysis and syllogistic argument in my posts. Stop lying. Just stick to trying to countering my points. Your bizarrre personal insults get you nowhere other than making you look stumped and frustrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have an honest wonder, when was the last time you took or were even present in a geometry class? You call non-euclidean geometry "new age magic", and yet it has been well established for over 100 years, and it has been known that the actual geometric structure of space time is described by riemannian geometry for nearly that long. Are you really that out of touch?

---

I took the course in the 1986-1987 school year, and I was a geometry teacher as of four years ago and still tutored some people in it this time last year. I have tutored students in it from several schools and textbooks in recent years. Does that answer your question? It is a fact that Euclidian geometry is what is taught in schools and tested on the ACT and SAT. Where the fuck have YOU been? :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You're "logical" argument for mass is also a perfect example of why you cannot be trusted as a judge of what is logical and what is not. Why does matter have mass? Your 'logical equation' goes something like this.

matter -> mass, therefore, mass because matter. You haven't shown why matter equals or exhibits the property of mass, you have only asserted that it does. The only reason why you think you know that it does is because you have observed it to be the case. What you presented is practically a text book example of begging the question.

---

Do you even know what mass is? It is the amount of matter in an object. Your mischaracterization of my argument is laughable. My real argument is that matter exists in amounts and therefore mass exists. I never went back in the other direction, liar. I bet you lie to people in person on a regular basis and have no problem with it. Am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

These reasons among others are usually the factors that cause people to either speak to you like you are a child or throw up their arms and 'walk away'. You argue as if your own assertions are enough to prove your point and then act either smugly amused or condescendingly exasperated and just repeat yourself over and over again when no one else sees it that way. This is the way a child behaves.

The reality is, until you learn the basic rules of logic, you have no place arguing about whether or not an established and empirically verified school of science meets those standards.

---

In that big post, the only counterarguments you attempted were a mischaracterization of my argument for the existence of mass and the false suggestion that non-Euclidian geometry is mainstream in schools. Do you understand how worthless that is? I have made a lot of points in here, and you are just spinning your wheels in the mud and really and truly acting like a child. You would have been much better off posting nothing at all.

If you have a personal problem with me, tell me your bull shit about it in PM's. This thread is for intellectual discussion and debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I believe that everything that we do, have done, or will ever do can be conjectured using math if you knew the state of the universe at a particular moment...

... everything that ever happened, is happening, or will ever happen was pre-decided at the instant of the big bang.

---

I agree. I think we can sort through a lot of the murkiness in here by answering this question.... Does anybody in here disagree with Ninja's point?

I took out the stuff about strings to avoid a separate debate on the existence and role of strings. What I quoted is what I am asking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I took the course in the 1986-1987 school year, and I was a geometry teacher as of four years ago and still tutored some people in it this time last year. I have tutored students in it from several schools and textbooks in recent years. Does that answer your question? It is a fact that Euclidian geometry is what is taught in schools and tested on the ACT and SAT. Where the fuck have YOU been? :roll:

---

I guess it does. I've been studying college level math and physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you even know what mass is? It is the amount of matter in an object. Your mischaracterization of my argument is laughable. My real argument is that matter exists in amounts and therefore mass exists. I never went back in the other direction, liar. I bet you lie to people in person on a regular basis and have no problem with it. Am I right?

---

No, you are not right. You asserted that mass is a property of matter and that because of this, mass exists. Not only is your premise incorrect, it also wouldn't explain why mass is logically a property of matter. Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton's Second Law of Motion, it has little to do with matter. Matter is defined as the presence of fermions in a system, which are particles with half integer spin. Bosons, which are force carrier particles (energy in laymen's terms) have whole integer spin and can also display mass. W and Z bosons, for instance (carrier particles for the weak nuclear force) have masses greater than lead atoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you have a personal problem with me, tell me your bull shit about it in PM's. This thread is for intellectual debate.

---

I have a problem with the fallacy laden way in which you attempt to debate, and I'll probably bring it up just about every time you try it in any discussion that I take part in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I guess it does. I've been studying college level math and physics.

---

Cool. I did that too. My point about Euclidian geometry stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, you are not right. You asserted that mass is a property of matter and that because of this, mass exists. Not only is your premise incorrect, it also wouldn't explain why mass is logically a property of matter. Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton's Second Law of Motion, it has little to do with matter. Matter is defined as the presence of fermions in a system, which are particles with half integer spin. Bosons, which are force carrier particles (energy in laymen's terms) have whole integer spin and can also display mass. W and Z bosons, for instance (carrier particles for the weak nuclear force) have masses greater than lead atoms.

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass

8. Physics. the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have a problem with the fallacy laden way in which you attempt to debate, and I'll probably bring it up just about every time you try it in any discussion that I take part in.

---

It's pathetic that you will make that easy cop out of an assertion in place of actually countering points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's pathetic that you will make that easy cop out of an assertion in place of actually countering points.

---

Its like you think you can ignore my entire post and then accuse me of 'not countering points' like it is going to convince me that its true. This is especially ironic because it has been clearly pointed out to you what specific logical fallacy you are guilty of (circular reasoning) and your response didn't amount to more than, "nuh uh.."
I've easily countered every point you've made. Here are a few more;

You may have shown how mass is defined in an english dictionary, but I showed how it is defined in physics, the scientific study to which it pertains; is the weak nuclear force "matter"? The fact that classical geometry is taught in school has no bearing on its relation to reality. Calculus is taught in school but no one claims that it is an accurate description of real things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass

8. Physics. the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion.

---

Just something I'd like to explain. Dictionary writers are not Physics PhDs. Mass is a property of a given physical object, not a quantity of object. Yes, it's true you can express the quantity of an object through its mass, because some objects have a strict correlation between their mass and their quantity, but it's a conceptual mistake to think mass is quantity.

In fact many people make this very mistake. They say for example "a certain mass of phosphate", when they should say "a certain amount of phosphate with a given mass".

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/causaldeterminism.png

Quote:

---

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the reason why people have such a hard time discussing with you, UM (at least on here, I have no idea if you behave this way in person.) You follow your own beliefs so religiously and dogmatically that you seem completely incapable of even comprehending where you are wrong even when someone has plainly showed it to you.

I have an honest wonder, when was the last time you took or were even present in a geometry class? You call non-euclidean geometry "new age magic", and yet it has been well established for over 100 years, and it has been known that the actual geometric structure of space time is described by riemannian geometry for nearly that long. Are you really that out of touch?

You're "logical" argument for mass is also a perfect example of why you cannot be trusted as a judge of what is logical and what is not. Why does matter have mass? Your 'logical equation' goes something like this.

matter -> mass, therefore, mass because matter. You haven't shown why matter equals or exhibits the property of mass, you have only asserted that it does. The only reason why you think you know that it does is because you have observed it to be the case. What you presented is practically a text book example of begging the question.

These reasons among others are usually the factors that cause people to either speak to you like you are a child or throw up their arms and 'walk away'. You argue as if your own assertions are enough to prove your point and then act either smugly amused or condescendingly exasperated and just repeat yourself over and over again when no one else sees it that way. This is the way a child behaves.

The reality is, until you learn the basic rules of logic, you have no place arguing about whether or not an established and empirically verified school of science meets those standards.

---

Thanks for taking the time to say this; I would've said it myself but lacked the energy to get into that discussion.

Quote:

---

Eventually it gets traced back to pure observation of something very simple and so obvious that nobody even questions it, like the fact that one's own thoughts exist. The entire house of cards rests on such a premise. If the premise turns out to be wrong, then reality is not what we thought and everything we thought we knew was wrong. However, the randomness of particle behavior is not that type of premise. It is much more complex and questionable. Also, the idea involves identifiable inconsistencies with logic.

---

I don't see why this is any different. You haven't given any proofs of logical inconsistency.

I disagree that the fundamental premise will always turn out to be simple, obvious and unquestionable. For example, F = ma (or to give the more general rule, F = dp/dt). It took thousands of years to work this out; the Greeks thought it was F = mv. The constant speed of light isn't even intuitive today.

The interesting thing about these fundamental premises is that they're just abstract mathematics. I'm interested in why you find abstract premises like

F = d(mv)/dt

incontrovertible, wheras other pieces of mathematics like

P(a < |mv| < b) = ∫[a,b] 1/sqrt2pi * e^-1/2x^2 dx

are impossible.

Quote:

---

Professors are usually crazy geniuses. I will never turn my analysis of reality upside down on the trust of a few professors. I have met plenty of intellectually dishonest professors too. Extreme intelligence very often does not result in true understanding of reality.

---

That's right, the single best university for mathematics in the entire world actually employs crazy people to teach their undergraduates.

There's no point in talking to you further about this. I can't reason with somebody who denies empirical evidence.

Your highschool level course in geometery isn't even relevant to this matter, considering at the start of the course you would have been provided with some axioms, whose universal truth would never have been asserted.

Quote:

---

No, we can also go by logic, just not at the most fundamental level.

---

Yes, I did say 'basic premises'...

Quote:

---

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/3rdlaw.htm

http://mypages.iit.edu/~smile/guests/Newton98B3.pdf

---

For goodness sakes, I asked you once to actually give some credence and thought to what I'm saying. This doesn't mean Googling for what I ask you and giving random links.

The first one isn't even about the second law, it's clearly titled 'third law', and the second one isn't a proof of F = ma. :l

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Its like you think you can ignore my entire post and then accuse me of 'not countering points' like it is going to convince me that its true. This is especially ironic because it has been clearly pointed out to you what specific logical fallacy you are guilty of (circular reasoning) and your response didn't amount to more than, "nuh uh.."
I've easily countered every point you've made. Here are a few more;

---

WTF? I addressed your little spec of scientific argument. The rest of your post was just a personal insult. That is so weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You may have shown how mass is defined in an english dictionary, but I showed how it is defined in physics, the scientific study to which it pertains; is the weak nuclear force "matter"? The fact that classical geometry is taught in school has no bearing on its relation to reality. Calculus is taught in school but no one claims that it is an accurate description of real things.

---

The schools are wrong and the dictionary is wrong, but Xaqaria is right. I'll keep that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just something I'd like to explain. Dictionary writers are not Physics PhDs. Mass is a property of a given physical object, not a quantity of object. Yes, it's true you can express the quantity of an object through its mass, because some objects have a strict correlation between their mass and their quantity, but it's a conceptual mistake to think mass is quantity.

In fact many people make this very mistake. They say for example "a certain mass of phosphate", when they should say "a certain amount of phosphate with a given mass".

---

Then physics books and dictionaries make that mistake all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks for taking the time to say this; I would've said it myself but lacked the energy to get into that discussion.

---

More twittiness from another little twit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see why this is any different. You haven't given any proofs of logical inconsistency.

---

I explained it into the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I disagree that the fundamental premise will always turn out to be simple, obvious and unquestionable. For example, F = ma (or to give the more general rule, F = dp/dt). It took thousands of years to work this out; the Greeks thought it was F = mv. The constant speed of light isn't even intuitive today.

---

That's why I said it doesn't qualify as such a premise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The interesting thing about these fundamental premises is that they're just abstract mathematics. I'm interested in why you find abstract premises like

F = d(mv)/dt

incontrovertible, wheras other pieces of mathematics like

P(a < |mv| < b) = ∫[a,b] 1/sqrt2pi * e^-1/2x^2 dx

are impossible.

---

Are you just getting your kicks making up shit about what I supposedly said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That's right, the single best university for mathematics in the entire world actually employs crazy people to teach their undergraduates.

---

Yes, though they are geniuses, as I said. I am talking about universities in general. I don't know the specifics of whatever school you are bragging about like a 7th grade football player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There's no point in talking to you further about this. I can't reason with somebody who denies empirical evidence.

---

Then run along and hang out with the other wormy little twits on the playground. I will question everything while you blindly accept every piece of evidence out there except for pieces of evidence you don't like, such as those that are part of Euclidian geometry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Your highschool level course in geometery isn't even relevant to this matter, considering at the start of the course you would have been provided with some axioms, whose universal truth would never have been asserted.

---

Universal truth is always implicitly asserted by postulates and theorems. For example, "Angles that form a linear pair are supplementary," would have to be worded differently if there were exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, I did say 'basic premises'...

---

Your idea of basic is not inherently the most fundamental level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

For goodness sakes, I asked you once to actually give some credence and thought to what I'm saying. This doesn't mean Googling for what I ask you and giving random links.

The first one isn't even about the second law, it's clearly titled 'third law', and the second one isn't a proof of F = ma. :l

---

You asked for a proof, whiney baby. The first one ties all three laws together and proves them. The second one is a proof of "Newton's force laws". I believe F = ma is one of them.


Everybody, I asked a few posts up if anybody disagrees with Ninja's point. I thought we might be closer to the same page than it appears. We might agree with the idea of the deterministic nature of the universe and just be disagreeing with (in terms of the topic of the thread) the idea that "quantum physics" disagrees with determinism. As I have said, there is a dichotomy between the data and the common analysis of the data in quantum physics. Some of you are arguing data and not addressing the common interpretation. It is the common interpretation I disagree with. Are we all on the same page on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I believe that everything that we do, have done, or will ever do can be conjectured using math if you knew the state of the universe at a particular moment....

... everything that ever happened, is happening, or will ever happen was pre-decided at the instant of the big bang. Kind of a downer.

---

Try to stay on topic. We are getting into the usual tangential bull shit Xei wants to get into and the usual personal insults against me several of you want to get into. I am flattered that I am so significant to you, but tell me where you stand on the topic of the thread, considering what I just said.

Quantum physics doesn't disagree with determinism if you think of it outside of the 4 normal dimensions. Quantum physics usually deals with particles, not strings. A vibration of a 12 dimensional string can cause particles to jump around in 3D space.

And can everyone stop referring to Newton? Newtons laws have been debunked for 50 years.

Kromoh is right, mass is not quantity. Remember that a constant object can have varying mass depending on how fast it's going.
Remember:
m = gamma * m0
If a football is being throw to you, it's mass is greater than it is when it's resting on the ground.

Where is the post about tying the nuclear weak force with matter? I don't see it, there are so many things wrong with that I wouldn't know where to begin.