The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread

[Rigwyn]

See, here is where an issue lays. I don't think it is inherently true that knowing all the factors  necessarily negates probability and allows you to assume only one possible path. Things may happen with a certain range of possibility no matter how much you know.

This this worded funny. It reads as if the results are affected by being observed. I don't think that's what you meant. And no, were not talking about QM right now, so it doesn't apply

You might be able refine the probabilities to more exactly reflect what is going to happen. But I think someone would  have to diliberately intervene to influence the outcome to make it one path only. However, there is a possibility that our limited understanding and control of various factors limits our ability to intervene to that extent meaning that even when we act there is still a some range of possibility.

To illustrate, you can flip a coin and it has the probability it has, but you could also catch the coin mid air and put it down on tails the whole time. I think with more understanding you will only refine the numbers for the probability and find something like it actually has a 70% chance of tails under these conditions, but probability will still be in play. I don't think you will ever refine it down to one possible outcome unless you deliberately influence the scenario which is represented by grabbing the coin and setting it down how you like. But that intervention still bypasses the fact that there were more possible outcomes under those circumstances.

This might be a case of funny wording too, but I'll comment anyway.

I'm not talking about altering the experiment in order to come up with different results. I am saying that the reason why you fail to guess heads or tails when a coin is flipped is because you are not capable of measuring and calculating all the factors needed to determine how the coin will land. The coin is a victim of the toss and all the factors that it encounters until it comes to rest. Each and every phase of its transition is DICTATED and can be calculated by an observer - assuming that they have the capacity and ability to measure and perform the calculation.

The way the coin flips and lands has nothing to do with its probability of landing one way or the other.

Now about physical gods, if you have a god that exists in our universe like we do then they may be constrained similiarly. But, being a part of our universe is not the same as having the same limitations that we as humans have. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on around us so we don't even know whether or not we can overcome things that currently constrain us as humans.

I think the point here is that idea of a god with free will flat out contradicts what we know about how things work. That's not to say that a god does not exist, but rather that the very idea of a god with free will does not make sense. The idea of me having free will does not make sense either, and I'm ok with that even though it doesn't make sense. 

Further, the "physical" universe is only a part of the whole. If you mean the matter based universe then it is easily the smaller part of the universe. Energy seems to make up more of the universe, and we are still learning about it in the greater whole.  So, there is this issue that you have to consider the concept of gods outside of the "physical" realm as we know, but not in some magical realm, just one we don't have enough information on. It's still a part of physics.

Ima ignore this thing about intangible gods that can't be described and whatnot.  The hideous ghost in my closet could be described with similar words and also could be made from energy and dark matter and whatnot.

But, either way, I still think choice is not the result of mechanisms but rather is facilitated by the mechanisms. You din't go down the road because you had a car, the car allowed you to get down the road.

Here's the sticky part. At what point do things stop reacting to the forces that set them in motion? If an asteroid  gets too close to a star and is sucked towards it due to gravity ( or curvature of spacetime or whatever you wish to call it ), Does it just do an about face and go the opposite way? Does it just disappear and reappear somewhere else? Does it just stop moving? No, moves according the forces acting up on it. There is NO deviating from this. This might as well be written in stone. This is what makes the concept of free will and randomness so alarming. [ "alarming" as a bad word.. I should say "contradictory" perhaps ]

Now about randomness, assuming no randomness also assumes we already know everything there is about probability.  If we had that level of understanding, I don't think scientists would still be working on probability experiments.

We use probability as a shortcut. We estimate rather than making billions of measurements and calculations.

For instance, there was a point when Physicists had believed that there was nothing left to learn about physics, and apparently Newtonian physics hasn't been updated much since Newton's time.

Hence the name, Newtonian Physics *cough*   

But Einstein came along and his work blew open a whole new sets of concepts which lead to new fields of physics. We might just need an Einstein for probability, or it might simply be that we will get new insight out of the newer branches of physics.

You lost me there.

As for your question Volki, I worded my association between randomness and free will poorly. You are right, they are not the same. I should have said that if the world as we know it is deterministic, then how is free will possible as the ability to choose freely suggests that we can break this deterministic cause and effect cycle.

[Illysia]

Free will is only contradictory if everything is already predetermined. I don't think the fact that everything is subject to various factors is definitive proof that everything in all aspects is for certain predetermined down one path. It simply means we can come closer to predicting accurate outcomes but there is still a chance that things will go different, even if by small chance. And no I don't mean different as in the complete opposite direction.

If you look at calculation, probability is multiplicative I believe. So each factor multiplies it's probability in order give you the total probability. 1 equals 100% certainty 0 equals 0% and each factor's probability is some decimal between the two. Now given as many factors as you want you will never get to 1 or zero meaning that there is no one certain path even if you factor in 5 million or more issues.

Going with probability as a proxy, even with everything being subject to forces around it, there is still a chance that the probability approximation is right and things will have more than one path option. The forces directly involved bring with them other factors acting on them that must be taken into account. Complex calculations don't necessarily equal a predetermined, singular outcome, especially in dynamic systems.

But, here's something to think about, the energy levels of electrons. While they say that the electron will raise to a different level by accepting energy, which is all fine and good, when talking about dropping a level they say it happens spontaneously. Basically the election emits energy and drops down in level, but there is supposedly no prompt for why it released the energy at that time. Now, I don't think I fully agree, but it is something to think about. If there really are things that happen without particular cause, I dare say there is a case that there must be some kind of random out there. In fact, maybe it's the reason the stuff closer to what we deal with in day to day life could have a measure of variability. Something underlying the more obvious factors may be contributing it.

Now, A god without free will contradicts all traditional notion and quite a few non traditional notions. But like I said above, there is only no free will if everything is already forever more predetermined.

Do you mean you are going to ignore the statement or ignore the intangible? You can ignore the intangible if you want but that is not the same as it is irrelevant. If you have some energy thing in your closet and it is able to interact matter, you have a problem in your closet regardless of what label you slap on it.

[Rigwyn]

Quick question. Do do you believe that the universe is deterministic or indeterministic?

[Rigwyn]

The universe as we know it thus far is deterministic.

Free will is only contradictory if everything is already predetermined.

Things may in fact be predetermined - rendering free will either an illusion or a flawed concept. Try not to be biased by the consequences and ramifications.

I don't think the fact that everything is subject to various factors is definitive proof that everything in all aspects is for certain predetermined down one path. It simply means we can come closer to predicting accurate outcomes but there is still a chance that things will go different, even if by small chance. And no I don't mean different as in the complete opposite direction.

How could something possibly "go different" ?  This is what is missing.

If you look at calculation, probability is multiplicative I believe. So each factor multiplies it's probability in order give you the total probability. 1 equals 100% certainty 0 equals 0% and each factor's probability is some decimal between the two. Now given as many factors as you want you will never get to 1 or zero meaning that there is no one certain path even if you factor in 5 million or more issues.

Probability is not what drives the world. Probability is a tool people have made for making accurate guesses.

Going with probability as a proxy, even with everything being subject to forces around it, there is still a chance that the probability approximation is right and things will have more than one path option.

No... this is not how things work. There is no gambler riding atop each subatomic particle rolling dice to decide which way the particle will go next.

The forces directly involved bring with them other factors acting on them that must be taken into account. Complex calculations don't necessarily equal a predetermined, singular outcome, especially in dynamic systems.

But, here's something to think about, the energy levels of electrons. While they say that the electron will raise to a different level by accepting energy, which is all fine and good, when talking about dropping a level they say it happens spontaneously. Basically the election emits energy and drops down in level, but there is supposedly no prompt for why it released the energy at that time. Now, I don't think I fully agree, but it is something to think about. If there really are things that happen without particular cause, I dare say there is a case that there must be some kind of random out there. In fact, maybe it's the reason the stuff closer to what we deal with in day to day life could have a measure of variability. Something underlying the more obvious factors may be contributing it.

You are racing into a web of confusion here. This does not prove or disprove the idea that things just happen at random. Mixing uncertainty and unknowns into the topic does not justify the existence of rainbow puking unicorns.

Now, A god without free will contradicts all traditional notion and quite a few non traditional notions

Just because these notions are traditional does not make them correct. Just because everyone believes that the earth is flat .. like the map... does not make it flat.

But like I said above, there is only no free will if everything is already forever more predetermined.

This is one possibility that we may never know.  Whether the universe is predetermined or not, I am still going to live my life as if I do have free will.

Do you mean you are going to ignore the statement or ignore the intangible? You can ignore the intangible if you want but that is not the same as it is irrelevant. If you have some energy thing in your closet and it is able to interact matter, you have a problem in your closet regardless of what label you slap on it.

I assure you IIlysia, the spooky creature in my closet is just a delusion of grandeur. I suspect that I've unwittingly imagined it in a covert attempt to boost my ego and sense of self importance. After all, if I was not so important, this creepy daemon thingy would not be creeping out of the closet and standing over me as I tremble beneath my blanket and try in vain to force myself to sleep. It would find someone else to pester. 


Ps. Regarding my creepy daemon friend: As a result of embracing my daemon friend with open arms, accepting the fact that he and I are one and the same, and accepting and loving him and thus myself unconditionally, I am at peace and sleep quite well. Oddly, he has vanished since then. 

[tman]

Further, the "physical" universe is only a part of the whole. If you mean the matter based universe then it is easily the smaller part of the universe. Energy seems to make up more of the universe, and we are still learning about it in the greater whole.  So, there is this issue that you have to consider the concept of gods outside of the "physical" realm as we know, but not in some magical realm, just one we don't have enough information on. It's still a part of physics.

You misunderstand me.  By "physical universe" I mean everything in existence that can physically be observed, including all forms of matter and energy.

Now about physical gods, if you have a god that exists in our universe like we do then they may be constrained similiarly. But, being a part of our universe is not the same as having the same limitations that we as humans have. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on around us so we don't even know whether or not we can overcome things that currently constrain us as humans.

I think the point here is that idea of a god with free will flat out contradicts what we know about how things work. That's not to say that a god does not exist, but rather that the very idea of a god with free will does not make sense. The idea of me having free will does not make sense either, and I'm ok with that even though it doesn't make sense. 

Exactly.  "Randomness" is a conceptual model invented by the human mind in an effort to explain what we observe.  We call a dice roll "random" because if we do it enough times we expect a certain distribution of outcomes.  But the fact is, if you know everything about the initial state of the die and the forces acting it, you can calculate exactly how it will roll.  "Randomness" is something humans use to account for the fact that we don't have all the information needed to predict with accuracy.

Science assumes at its most basic fundamental level that the universe works in this way.  There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the previous and current state of any entity in existence.  Therefore, the implication is if you know everything about the laws that govern the physical universe, and you know exactly where every entity was at any given time, you can calculate exactly how every particle will move for all of the past and future.  Which would imply that everything, even a god who lives in the observable physical universe, is predetermined.

But a God who lives outside of our observable universe would not be subject to this constraint.  He could change things without being affected by them.

Imagine it like you're playing the Sims, but you leave the mode on where your Sims do their own thing if you don't tell them what to do.  If you never touch the keyboard or mouse, your Sims will go about their lives, subject solely to the constraints of their AI.  Give the same state, they will do the same thing every time. (If their actions have some random element, their behavior might differ, but they are at the mercy of the random number generator.  Given the same seed, they will always do the same thing.)  They act out their lives as if they have free will, but they are actually just following a specific set of instructions laid out in the game and AI code.  In this analogy, the game is the universe, the Sims are people, and the game code is the laws of physics. 

And the player is god.  The player lives outside the game code, but can effect things within the game universe.  He can pause the game and move things and people around.  He can give people tasks to do.  He can use cheats to improve the lives of the players.  If he wants, he may even be able to hack the game and change the game code (laws of physics).  Since he lives outside of the game code, he is not subject to the same equations that dictate how the Sims and the world will behave.

But the Sims cannot know about the player.  All they know is what is inside the game code, because that is all they can possibly see or interact with.  Anything outside the game is undetectable to them.

This is what I mean when I say that there are questions science cannot answer.  Are we just "sims" in some god player's simulated universe?  There's no way to know, because we don't have access to anything outside the universe we exist in.

[Rigwyn]

[bloodedIrishman]

Looks like something a person on maryjuwana would stare at Rigmeister.

[Volki]

But, here's something to think about, the energy levels of electrons. While they say that the electron will raise to a different level by accepting energy, which is all fine and good, when talking about dropping a level they say it happens spontaneously. Basically the election emits energy and drops down in level, but there is supposedly no prompt for why it released the energy at that time. Now, I don't think I fully agree, but it is something to think about. If there really are things that happen without particular cause, I dare say there is a case that there must be some kind of random out there. In fact, maybe it's the reason the stuff closer to what we deal with in day to day life could have a measure of variability. Something underlying the more obvious factors may be contributing it.

That's not what that means. I'm really not inclined to say why, though. That's not how it works. That's not what "spontaneous" means here. alsjdfl;kf

[LigH]

@ Rigwyn:

A nice interpretation of Fullerene...

[Eonwind]

The universe as we know it thus far is deterministic.

Sorry but this is false.
Truth is it's not been determined yet even if one of the major pillars of the modern physic: the quantum mechanics has proven not to be deterministic which may lead us with good approximation to think the universe has good chances to be NOT deterministic.
The only possible way to "normalize" the quantum mechanic to make it fits into a deterministic law was to use the Schrodinger's law which was taken (by most physician) as a sort of mathematical rape of the quantum theories. No experimental proof has been able to prove quantum mechanic to fit into a deterministic law.

[tman]

If I understood correctly (and it's entirely possible I did not) the probabilities discussed in quantum mechanics refer to probabilities of detection of a specific state.

For example, in the topic previously discussed about electron orbitals, the definition of an orbital its the region around the nucleus where the electron has a 90% chance of being located (or something, it's been a few years since I took chemistry).  That doesn't mean that when you look at an orbital, some universe random number generator rolls a D20 die and if x<=18 then the electron is in the orbital and if not then it's outside somewhere.  In reality the electron moves along its own patch all the time, and we have no reason to think that its path isn't determined wholly by some mathematical function of initial position and time.  We just don't have the tools to measure or predict the path accurately enough.  The "random" motion of the electron is the human brain's way of averaging out its overall behavior.

[Edit: Just want to add that this discussion has been really thought-provoking and enjoyable.  ]

[Rigwyn]

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.

[Pakarro]

...  In reality the electron moves along its own patch all the time, and we have no reason to think that its path isn't determined wholly by some mathematical function of initial position and time.  We just don't have the tools to measure or predict the path accurately enough.  The "random" motion of the electron is the human brain's way of averaging out its overall behavior.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be so. You share this line of thought with Einstein, who refused to accept quantum mechanics in the way it is understood now ("god is not rolling the dice"). Present consensus among physicists is that the motion of small particles can only be described by probabilities. Hidden variables, which is the term what for you are referring to, are not an option any more.

Good luck in your further random movement!

[Volki]

probabilities =/= randomness

[Illysia]

For the record, I wasn't speaking of orbitals in general but simply a lack of prompt for when electron decided to drop to lower energy states.

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.

Now about quantum mechanics, I believe the reason that atoms and bigger don't go winking in and out is because at a certain level Newtonian physics kicks in. The two rule sets don't overlap to my knowledge, so the later must kick in and enforces a sort of stability I guess. But I am curious what goes on at the interface between the two systems.

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?