Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

UM accusing others of the same thing they have been arguing against him for doing usually signals the end of the argument. Good game, guys.

Another empty assertion. I question everything but have beliefs. I, unlike Xei, never dogged anybody for merely not accepting empirical evidence. And your part of the game was over many posts ago. You made your part of this discussion about me instead of the topic of the thread. Again, I am flattered.

Here is a Northwestern University explanation of what mass is.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/proj...t-is-mass.html

This is a New York University (NYU) explanation.

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/mass.html

This one ties in my (the world's) definition with the attempts at correction I have gotten from some of you. The definition relates mass to inertia, but it does not contradict my (the world's) definition.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

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

By Einstein's grandson..?

More twittiness from another little twit.

Ugh, exactly why I didn't bother. This is the kind of response you get.

Ironically what Xaq was saying was that you can't take any criticism or even just attempts at education in a mature fashion. And that's how you respond... whatever UM.

Perhaps I should try acting like you.

I explained it into the ground.

HIPPOS WILL COME OUT OF SINKS AND HUMP BIG BIRD LOLOLOL.

No UM that's not a logical argument.

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

LIAR.

Anyway if they aren't premises which apparently they aren't any more then give logical arguments for them.

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

Errrrrrrrrrrrr you did say those things. The first extremely simple equation is Newton's second law which you don't have a problem with, the second very simple expression is a precise definition of the probability that the magnitude of some particle's momentum is within certain bounds.

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.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Clue's in the location Sherlock.

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.

Things which are part of Euclidian geometry are evidence for Euclidian geometry? Where've I heard that before?

You're really good at these epic logic failures, I've got to hand it to you. You managed to make the same fallacy twice on the same page even after Xaq explained it to you the first time (to which you responded with bawing of course).

Here's evidence that negates the parallel postulate:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm

Where's your evidence for it? You know, all that stuff I ignored in your fantasy world? I'm not a blind worm, I promise.

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.

OMG LIAR DODGE TWIT BABY LOL.

It's kind of bemusing you're keeping this up. You clearly don't understand anything in those pages, which implies you don't understand the most basic physics possible. No, the first one does not 'prove' all of Newton's laws, it clearly says otherwise in the brief. The second one I had to read for a bit to understand what it was talking about. After a while I got pretty pissed off because I realised by giving me this article you'd either read no further than the title or failed to listen to anything I'd said previously, because the article is about how Newton's laws are deductable from observations such as elliptical orbits.

I'd be very concerned if they had proved Newton's laws a priori, considering that they aren't even universally true.

Originally Posted by Xei

By Einstein's grandson..?

Oops, I was thinking of the wrong world war. Okay, 90 years His theories were proved on 5/29/1919. Still doesn't change the fact that arguing Newtonian physics in something as complex as determinism or quantum physics is not a good thing because it doesn't work.


UM, all of those links point to Physics 101 stuff. If you hold a ball that is exactly 1kg and throw it. It's no longer exactly 1kg, it's actually a little bit more than 1kg, even though the amount of matter is constant.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Yes, unfortunately, they do.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, unfortunately, they do.

They aren't mistakes, they're just simplified so that people who don't know complex physics can understand it. Even NASA uses Newton's Laws for calculations including his 2nd Law. They're not right, but close enough and far simpler than the correct laws.

Still doesn't change the fact that arguing Newtonian physics in something as complex as determinism or quantum physics is not a good thing because it doesn't work.

It's more a philosophical discussion.

I'm trying to explain to UM that there are various things that you cannot give a logical reason for but must simply accept.

F = ma was just an example. You can give logical reasons for why a pendulum's motion approximates to simple harmonic motion for instance, and if you do it as thoroughly as possible you will basically end up with F = ma, but here you can go no further. The only thing you can do here is to give a posteriori arguments based on the fact that F does seem to be equal to ma if we do basic experiments.

My point then was that it is the same way with a probabilistic universe. You can't prove that it isn't because proof doesn't apply; there are no premises to make deductions from which would either prove or disprove randomness. Therefore you just accept what you observe.

Xei, your intellectual dishonesty is one of the amusing wonders of this web site. Everybody else, let's all pretend that what is taught in physics books, dictionaries, and major university web sites is just bull shit that is there for simplification purposes. I would really like to get to the bottom of the topic of this thread. I am going to post this yet again...

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?

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....

Originally Posted by ninja9578

... 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.


Hello??????????

My bad, this is in the Philosophy forum, not the science forum. I was thinking of a difference theory of determinism. There's a physics theory called determinism too and I just saw this in ED and assumed it was in Science and Mathematics.

Xei, your intellectual dishonesty is one of the amusing wonders of this web site.

Yet I seem to be the one who answers questions rather than ignores them.

Everybody else, let's all pretend that what is taught in physics books, dictionaries, and major university web sites is just bull shit that is there for simplification purposes. I would really like to get to the bottom of the topic of this thread. I am going to post this yet again...

Yes general relativity is a lie, just look at all of the people supporting you here. Fortunately again you have provided a wealth of citations to support yourself.

Ninja's point, tangential etc.

I don't understand what you mean really, how can people agree that the universe is deterministic but disagree that quantum physics is deterministic? Quantum physics describes the universe.

Quantum physics is not remotely tangential but rather at the very crux of any credible modern discussion of determinism and it's all I've been talking about. I've made clear the point that I believe the randomness of wavefunction collapse is 'inherent' due to the fact that theories with hidden non-random elements contradict observation, and I don't believe that this property of randomness is impossible (or even particularly surprising).

There's a physics theory called determinism too and I just saw this in ED and assumed it was in Science and Mathematics.

Could you explain? I seem to remember you describing determinism somewhere and it sounding pretty like how I would describe it.

To illustrate your intellectual dishonesty, I will point out a few things about your most recent post. Your points about geometry and others were tangential, not your points about general relativity. I'm sure you already knew that. Thanks for your recurring mischaracterizations. Also, I answered zillions of your questions despite the fact that we got way off topic. The issue of the thread is determinism, and you would not focus on it for a while even though I kept asking about it. I keep asking if you and the others agree with Ninja's point that I have quoted like four times now, and you won't answer it, lying hypocrite. Let's try this again. Do you agree with Ninja's point I repeatedly quoted????????

UM, you confused the shit out of me. You posted a quote I made about my thoughts on determinism, then said that you agreed with it, then posted the same quote and asked someone [I assumed me] to stay on topic.

Xei, determinism as I see it is that everything is predetermined by the laws of physics and the configuration of the universe at the point of the big bang.

I'm confused as to what we're talking about and tangents and stuff

The issue of the thread is determinism, and you would not focus on it for a while even though I kept asking about it. I keep asking if you and the others agree with Ninja's point that I have quoted like four times now, and you won't answer it, lying hypocrite. Let's try this again. Do you agree with Ninja's point I repeatedly quoted????????

Oh I understand now, you've gotten the idea that I'm intellectually dishonest from your own failure to comprehend what I'm saying.

I even quoted 'Ninja's point' when I responded thus:

"I've made clear the point that I believe the randomness of wavefunction collapse is 'inherent' due to the fact that theories with hidden non-random elements contradict observation, and I don't believe that this property of randomness is impossible (or even particularly surprising)."

If you don't understand that this means 'I disagree with what ninja said' then that is your own failing.

Your points about geometry and others were tangential, not your points about general relativity.

The point about geometry was an example to show how inherent randomness isn't contradictory, which is at the heart of this discussion.

The funny thing is as soon as I'd posted it I realised you'd get totally hung up about it and it'd turn into a major tangent so I changed the example for you:

"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.

...

There's no point in talking to you further about this."

Xei, determinism as I see it is that everything is predetermined by the laws of physics and the configuration of the universe at the point of the big bang.

Indeed; and I'm assuming you find the notion of inherent randomness contradictory?

Originally Posted by Xei

Indeed; and I'm assuming you find the notion of inherent randomness contradictory?

Yes, I believe that random things like the position of an electron can be explained by a new set of physics. If string theory is correct, then strings are vibration in a mathematically predictable way (although the math may looks quiet strange due to motion in 12 dimensions and some and no space in between them at the same time. What if only a few positions of interlaced strings create stable matter, and both strings vibrate. They may only be in a stable configuration half the time, which means the millions of other strings work the same way, so depending on how strings next to each other behave, the electron can jump location, and quantum levels.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

UM, you confused the shit out of me. You posted a quote I made about my thoughts on determinism, then said that you agreed with it, then posted the same quote and asked someone [I assumed me] to stay on topic.

Your quote was very much on topic. What is the title of this thread? What is the first post about? No, I was not asking you to stay on topic. I made a point, quoted you to show what I was talking about, and then continued my point.

Originally Posted by Xei

Oh I understand now, you've gotten the idea that I'm intellectually dishonest from your own failure to comprehend what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Xei

If you don't understand that this means 'I disagree with what ninja said' then that is your own failing.

I asked for a direct answer, which FINALLY you have given, because of the confusion in here concerning randomness in terms of human understanding and randomness in terms of the ways particles must act. I wanted to clear the water by getting direct answers concerning Ninja's point. You have trouble giving those.

Now that we are here, we can see that you do believe that particle behavior can go one way instead of another for absolutely no reason. That is what involves something from nothing. It is magical and nonsensical. That is my overall point in here.

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?

The problem with the question you are asking here is that it is misleading. Even if you deny that the universe ever exhibits random behavior, quantum mechanics still describes a world in which determinism is unfalsifiable. The knowledge of all states (all causes) does not exist. It is not just that we can't currently know 'everything' or that humans cannot know; if quantum mechanics is correct (and there is a large body of evidence that suggests that it is), then there is no such thing as the knowledge of all states at all. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, photons, electrons, atoms, etc. do not exist and yet the interactions between them do, evand yet the state of the non-existent atom is still an essential piece of information to making an exact determination.

Basically what this means is that determinism is true if and only if it is possible to know everything that is real as well as everything that is 'not real'.

The scenario involving knowing all states in the universe is hypothetical. Determinists don't inherently believe that knowing all states is possible. I seriously doubt there are too many who do believe it. The point of the scenario is that there is one way the future must happen. The part about knowing all states and predicting future ones is just used to illustrate that point, not to say that it really is possible to know all states.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The scenario involving knowing all states in the universe is hypothetical. Determinists don't inherently believe that knowing all states is possible. I seriously doubt there are too many who do believe it. The point of the scenario is that there is one way the future must happen. The part about knowing all states and predicting future ones is just used to illustrate that point, not to say that it really is possible to know all states.

I think you missed the point, so I will restate it. I'm not talking about whether it is possible to know all states, I'm saying that all states do not exist. You can 'decide' that everything is predetermined but that can only ever be a philosophical position that will never be backed by science until all of the scientific progress of the last 100 years is disproved. Even if a hypothetical god were able to 'stop' the universe in its tracks and examine everything, that god could never examine all states and determine how things will unfold once the universe is restarted; indeed, if one were to stop the universe in its tracks it would cease to exist entirely. We are talking about a universe in which only 'effects' exist and causes do not, even though they still 'produce' effects.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think you missed the point, so I will restate it. I'm not talking about whether it is possible to know all states, I'm saying that all states do not exist. You can 'decide' that everything is predetermined but that can only ever be a philosophical position that will never be backed by science until all of the scientific progress of the last 100 years is disproved. Even if a hypothetical god were able to 'stop' the universe in its tracks and examine everything, that god could never examine all states and determine how things will unfold once the universe is restarted; indeed, if one were to stop the universe in its tracks it would cease to exist entirely. We are talking about a universe in which only 'effects' exist and causes do not, even though they still 'produce' effects.

Uh...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Basically what this means is that determinism is true if and only if it is possible to know everything that is real as well as everything that is 'not real'.

Any way, causes do not exist even though they produce effects? All states do not exist? The universe would cease to exist if it stopped entirely (whatever that has to do with anything)? Good luck with all of that, if all of that exists.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Uh...



Any way, causes do not exist even though they produce effects? All states do not exist? The universe would cease to exist if it stopped entirely (whatever that has to do with anything)? Good luck with all of that, if all of that exists.

riight... the 'and everything that is not real' was the important bit.

At this point all I can really do is say, start reading about it. You don't take kindly to appeals to authority and you don't accept my assessment, and yet you know next to nothing about it yourself. What else is there to say? Start reading, you have a lot of work to do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

riight... the 'and everything that is not real' was the important bit.

At this point all I can really do is say, start reading about it. You don't take kindly to appeals to authority and you don't accept my assessment, and yet you know next to nothing about it yourself. What else is there to say? Start reading, you have a lot of work to do.

Start being logical.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Start being logical.

no you. /thread

I'll leave everybody with a thought. Randomness:

Insightful.

I asked for a direct answer, which FINALLY you have given, because of the confusion in here concerning randomness in terms of human understanding and randomness in terms of the ways particles must act. I wanted to clear the water by getting direct answers concerning Ninja's point. You have trouble giving those.

randomness of wavefunction collapse is 'inherent'

Just stop with the bull UM, it's right there for anybody to see.

Why were you even asking that inane question? If you'd tried to comprehend anything I've been saying for the entire duration of the thread you'd have known that I was trying to argue against ninja's position.

Now that we are here, we can see that you do believe that particle behavior can go one way instead of another for absolutely no reason. That is what involves something from nothing. It is magical and nonsensical. That is my overall point in here.

Ughhhhh we know that's your point and I've spent the whole thread trying to argue that it is wrong.

A fundamental premise doesn't have a reason. If you argue that something cannot exist if there is no logical argument for it, you are also arguing that, for example, it's impossible for the speed of light to be constant, and that it is impossible that F = ma in inertial frames; you're even arguing that the universe never came into being.

If universes can come into being that just fucks with the whole of logic, doesn't it? I mean, if universes can come into being, then there's nothing stopping hippos from suddenly coming into being for absolutely no reason. It's magical and nonsensical. The universe would be complete chaos!

I already explained why I asked the question and wanted a direct answer, Mr. Dishonesty. No, there are reasons for the existence of the universe and for everything else, although we cannot always identify the reasons. Nothing poofs into existence without cause. It is an absurd concept.