The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread

[Eonwind]

Thought provoking indeed

The QM side of this is over my head. I have a light understanding, but that's about it. What I don't understand is how things on a larger scale could behave in such a deterministic way if their underpinnings are indeterministic? If at the subatomic level, things happen randomly - blinking in and out of existence with no rhyme or reason, then how is it that atoms, molecules, and so on behave more predictably?  I would equally stumped if the reverse was true - if you could get randomness from order.

to tell the truth not even science is actually able to do ... really
the two main theories that drive current science the relativity (which is a very good in explaining larger scale interaction like the star systems, the universe expansion, black holes) somehow fails when applied to small subatomic system tosuch an extend that its predictions are totally wrong, same can be said while trying to apply EQM to gravitational systems.
This is why we don't have a TOE (Thoery Of Everything) yet!

However my personal understanding of the universe is that probabilities resulting from very small scale interactions can, in a considerable time scale, leads to an ever growing  "cloud" of unpredictable events (or the probabilities that different outcomes can happens begins to be no more negligible) even on a larger scale (such as planets, and stars patterns, ...).
Now looking at smaller scale like we experience in everyday life I believe the unpredictability resulting from those "strange" physical laws (quantum physic) has a bigger impact than it can have on a star system. This by no means has anything to do with "randomness" (at least in the way we use to think about random).

[Rigwyn]

to tell the truth not even science is actually able to do ... really
the two main theories that drive current science the relativity (which is a very good in explaining larger scale interaction like the star systems, the universe expansion, black holes) somehow fails when applied to small subatomic system tosuch an extend that its predictions are totally wrong, same can be said while trying to apply EQM to gravitational systems.
This is why we don't have a TOE (Thoery Of Everything) yet!

So.. if QM is indeterministic however, those wonky behaviors that are at play only at the subatomic level do not have any affect at a macroscopic level ( ie. it does not cause photons to stray from their trajectories as they traverses from one end of the universe to the other. Such creep or collective error would cause light to twist and knot along the way - perhaps turning back to its origin. ),  then does this make the universe as a whole indeterministic too?  Isn't it fair to say that ts deterministic at a macroscopic level?

However my personal understanding of the universe is that probabilities resulting from very small scale interactions can, in a considerable time scale, leads to an ever growing  "cloud" of unpredictable events (or the probabilities that different outcomes can happens begins to be no more negligible) even on a larger scale (such as planets, and stars patterns, ...).

Right, but there is still a chain of cause and effect. It's just too obscure to measure and observe.That's not the same as saying that randomness is part of the cause, rather its only practical to deal with this mess by using probability and treating it as if it was random.

?

Damn you.. I'm going to have to start studying this stuff now.... 

[tman]

Further, the math of probability won't let you get to 1 or 0 meaning there is no point at which you set an invariable course.

This isn't true when applied to things in the real world.  In a frictionless vacuum, if you hold a marble 5 feet off the surface of the earth and drop it, there is a 100 percent chance that it will fall toward the ground with an acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s².  There is zero chance that the marble will follow some other path.  There is only one possible outcome.

More generally, when any forces are applied to an object, the object will move according to the equation a = F/m, where F is a vector specifying the magnitude and direction of the sum of all forces acting on the object, and m is its mass.  This happens with a probability of 1.  The probability that this won't happen is 0.  That's why it is a scientific law.

"Randomness" is a human construct to explain how things happen "on average," since we cannot possibly know every force all the time and must make generalizations.

Oh and about the Sims. To be fair, to the extent that Sims are aware of anything, they are aware of the player too. Fail to fulfill a need and the sim will look up and wave at the player to get their attention. Limited though it is, as long as a means of interacting is written into "the code" there is a means for the player and the sim to be aware of each other. The real world question is simply, what is the "written into the code" means of interacting?

As far as I remember, this wasn't the case in the version I played as a kid.  The Sims would have thought bubbles pop up above their heads about what they needed or they would make some physical indication (yawn, etc.).  Regardless, the analogy is still in tact.  If the game world is the universe, the Sims have no way of knowing anything about the world outside their universe  unless the player specifically changes the code to put it into the game. 

For example, if I want to somehow explain to my Sims how comfy my blanket is, I need to put it into their universe in a way that they will understand.  As discussed previously, there is no way to perfectly represent real things in computers; all they know its 0s and 1s.  So at best the texture, material, size, color, etc. of it will be only an approximation of the real object.  Then its attributes must be assigned in a way they will understand.  That's easy, Sims have a comfort bar, so we can say using this blanket increases their comfort by a certain number of points.  So we have an approximation of the real "metaphysical" (by the code's standards) object inside the game universe.  But here's the kicker.  The approximation of a metaphysical object in the game universe becomes a physical object.  The object the Sims perceive can be explained in its entirety by the physical laws (code) of the game universe.  They still have no concept of the metaphysical reality.

Sorry if that was confusing.  I should come up with a better explanation but I have a midterm tomorrow. 

[Illysia]

Creating the vacuum and dropping the marble represents what I said earlier about intervening. You are specifically reducing the amount of factors that would normally affect the marble so that you can force a result. That marble would otherwise be subject to more complex forces. I believe in this case you are simplifying F by introducing a vacuum and metaphorically grabbing the coin and setting it down. I get what you mean, it's not going to fly off into space without another force acting on it, but I'm pretty sure that the vacuum qualifies as intervention that bypasses probability.

However, I think I get you point about the metaphysical now and you are probably right that there are concepts that are approximated in the real world. But I would stick out that for our purposes and the Sims purposes, we probably can understand well enough as we need to.

[Volki]

All you have to do is state the prompt for the shift Volki, If you can't be bothered to explain then there is nothing to take your word on. Further, the math of probability won't let you get to 1 or 0 meaning there is no point at which you set an invariable course. There is only no room for random if there are no other options.

In science, spontaneous does not equal random. It means that the change will occur given the right conditions. And it will happen. There is no element of randomness at all. This is just a case of a layman's term being mixed with a scientific term. I ask that you trust me on this. I don't want to argue for hundreds of pages.

It's useless to even mention the "locations" of electrons in their orbitals because no one knows if their movement is truly random. The equipment does not exist to properly measure them. So, it would be foolish to use the supposed randomness as proof of randomness. And it would be especially foolish to use it in an argument about free will.

[Rigwyn]

I think once again, this topic has gone about as far as it can go. Any other ideas for topics?

[tman]

Creating the vacuum and dropping the marble represents what I said earlier about intervening. You are specifically reducing the amount of factors that would normally affect the marble so that you can force a result. That marble would otherwise be subject to more complex forces. I believe in this case you are simplifying F by introducing a vacuum and metaphorically grabbing the coin and setting it down. I get what you mean, it's not going to fly off into space without another force acting on it, but I'm pretty sure that the vacuum qualifies as intervention that bypasses probability.

You're misunderstanding the point.  The marble in a vacuum is just an example.

Another way to look at it: the planets in our solar system move around the sun in very specific, calculated ways.  In our solar system it becomes tedious to calculate because there is some tiny effect of other the other planets and moons on any given orbit.  Note: tedious, not impossible.

So let's look at a solar system consisting of one star and one planet.  Given the planet's distance from the star and it's current velocity, you can calculate the exact path which the planet will take around the star.  The probability that it follows this path is 100%, and the probability it deviates from this path is 0.  You see, I didn't "set up" this system.  It exists naturally.  It is a simple system, yes, but the point is still made.  You can easily extend this to a solar system with 2 planets.  You just need to account for the tiny force of gravity between the planets when doing calculations.  It's easy.  When consider a solar system with a few more bodies (planets, moons, asteroids) things become more difficult but still entirely within our abilities.  We didn't set up the system in a way that eliminates the other possibilities.  The laws of physics prescribe how the motion of the system plays out.

[Rirenil Masdo]

I think once again, this topic has gone about as far as it can go. Any other ideas for topics?

viking or pirate metal?  here's examples taken from youtube.  to be fair in the examples, i simply took whatever the first video that came up in the search results.

viking:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPRt6Tt6RyM
pirate:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-Z_psXODw

i think i'm leaning towards pirate

[bloodedIrishman]

More Pony.

[Illysia]

@Volki: Fair enough.

@tman: Ok, I'll give, but maybe it's a matter of random being something unique to choice. But since some folks are ready to move on I suppose I'll let that go.

@Rirenil: Metal isn't really my thing....

@bloodedIrishman: Someone get the duct tape!

[Rigwyn]

I think you can still have choice in a deterministic system - the only caveat is that your choice and what you choose was predetermined.... but that doesn't really matter. LOL

You are choosing, making a choice and effecting change however this was all part of the grand design and known in advance so technically, you did not deviate from the great wind up machine.

Now to splash in some religious color to this:

God is the begining and the end, the alpha and the omega. He ( sexist, I know ) is the prime mover. He knows everything about you, what you will choose, and what will happen as a result. He knows the future and has complete control over it because he crafted each and every detail of this system.

Nothing that happens in god's world is an accident, nothing is flawed. There are no mistakes - each and every cog in this machine is there for a reason and is tied in with something else. Lucifer, murderers, disasters, sickness, the angels, mohamed, sinners, scientists, athiests, doctors, accidents, bad luck, karma,  born agains, evaporating black holes and spooky branch davidians interacting at a distance are all intertwined in this gigantic collection of gears.

Perhaps this god has made this wind up toy for his own amusement so he can sit there and watch it churn and transform before his eyes - smiling and laughing as he watches people do things good and bad, argue and fight over their beliefs, warm the planet, and most importantly, try to figure out and explain how this contraption works.

Perhaps this universe sized toy is just one of many bizarre trinkets that are sold and traded like cheap imported goods at a celestial bazaar? Perhaps others such contraptions are completely different from this universe thingy. I don't just mean different stating conditions, I mean as different as a fruit cake is from a television show.

[tman]

Or maybe God is just a kid at his computer and we are his Sims 

[Rigwyn]

Heh...

Maybe we are the eyes and ears of this creator - hence, we have a purpose in life .... o.O

[Illysia]

Choice down a predetermined route is not choice, it's the just the next step. But I don't think I can quite get with the Doodle God theory of divine exploration and discovery.

I think factors were set in place and allowed to proceed, but because of free will, things can turn badly. Everything seems to have an opposite, so I imagine that even starting with good there is still the chance for bad to manifest as the opposite.

But hey, I thought we were moving on to pirate metal?

[bloodedIrishman]

@Rigwyn

I've no interest in serving a divine tyrant.

I'm fine with being a result of accidents. Thats how I was conceived anyway.