NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure this bothers a lot of people, but I think it's a pretty neat concept:

Because everything in our Universe is either matter or energy, and matter & energy ALWAYS act according to strict rules of physics, all outcomes in our Universe are deterministic (the outcome will always be the same with the given conditions). Because we exist in the Universe, everything we do is also deterministic. You may think it was your free will to come to this web site and click on this crazy bnut-job thread, but there were causes for everything your did. For instance, why did your browser go to this thread? Because you clicked on its header. Why did you do that? Because a nerve impulse from your brain told your hand to do it. Why did your brain do that? Because it decided that the potential benefits outweighed the risks. Why did it decide that? Well, we don't know, but ultimately it boils down to a bunch of atoms in your brain swapping electrical impulse all according to precisely defined (though perhaps unknown to us) rules. How cool is that? Think of the implications: Our world is the only one it ever could be. There are no random outcomes. There is no God. We could theoretically predict the future exactly (though we never will - the world is too complex to be predictable).

Cool, huh?

When I looked at the thread, I misread this is "We're all slaves of psychics!"
:D

Oh, quantum mechanics throws off the whole determinism argument, if it's true.

When I looked at the thread, I misread this is "We're all slaves of psychics!"
:D

Oh, quantum mechanics throws off the whole determinism argument, if it's true.
Yes this is true - but much of it still holds true - there aren't many quantum particles operating in your brain.

Yes this is true - but much of it still holds true - there aren't many quantum particles operating in your brain.
What is a "quantum particle"?
Every particle is affected by quantum physics, I believe.

What is a "quantum particle"?
Every particle is affected by quantum physics, I believe.
Well, a quanta is a given amount, sooooo...I have no fucking idea.

I was just clicking about randomly, a la the radioactive decay of an isotope :p No benefits outweighing the risks here, just simply boredom.

Our world is the only one it ever could be. There are no random outcomes. There is no God. We could theoretically predict the future exactly (though we never will - the world is too complex to be predictable).

Cool, huh?

What? Quantum mechanics falsifies the first two conclusions and the god one doesn't make any sense. The universe is goverened by rules, that's fine. But where did those rules come from? Why not god? God could have made the rules. You could even say that god is the rules. Or something like that. I don't know.

So, since everything is just physics, biology and chemistry, will it be possible in future just to upload the knowledge like in MATRIX instead of sitting in school on a nice spring day?

Or why not stay in bed and just simulate that spring day as well?

Eating? Let's just make some machines who bring us food and clean the house.

Well, a quanta is a given amount, sooooo...I have no fucking idea.
i always thought quantum physics was really just the physics of the sub-atomic particles...like an electron or a neutron - and that they dont always follow the "normal" laws of physics, but is rather more down to chance or something?

Our world is the only one it ever could be. There are no random outcomes. There is no God.
Wow, I've never seen a mix of reductionism, determinism, existentialism, nihilism, and atheism quite like this. There's quite a bit that you missed, but I guess that's ok. You can go much lower, however, into subatomic physics, and much higher into chemistry and biology.

You could even say that god is the rules.
I know someone who claims that God is DNA. It's pretty weird. Sorry for the digression, but that made me think of it. Though what you said is much closer to some paganistic pantheism.

Yeah well, I'm just throwing out random stuff here. I'll leave the categorizations to you. You seem to be well-schooled in ismology.

You seem to be well-schooled in ismology.
What exactly is ismology? I've never heard that term before.

Why, the study of -isms, of course.

:D

What exactly is ismology? I've never heard that term before.
-ism -ology

Or, at least, that's what I would make up if I were the sort of person who makes things up.

Pythagosaurus wins! Give yourself a pat on the back and a milkshake.

1) Determinism doesn't negate the possibility of the "supernatural". Technically, if magic existed, it would still follow the rules of physics, it would just be that there's some really whacky things you can do with it. Say, if the electrons in your brain could align a charge in your fingertips which would build up until you shot a small lightning bolt out at something, which would have the usual effect of a large burst of electricity, etc. Supernatural entities, such as what would be reffered to as a deity (Basically a really fricking powerful magic user), would be equally effected by what occurs around them.

2) Chaos is neither proven nor disproven. However, the sheer number of variables in the way things work make it highly unlikely we'll be able to predict all events.

3) There are as of yet no logical conceptualizations of 'free will' that are not, ultimately, deterministic, or chaotic that I have ever witnessed here or elsewhere.

4) The absence or presence of a deity can only really be argued based on what features are assigned to it. It is harder to argue against the less tangible deific concepts (IPU), and much much easier to argue against those given omni- abilities and other logically impossible features.

You are wrong. The only reason you are wrong is because the rule that everything evolves and adapts. Even if you go down to the tiny little atoms in your body you can't predict everything because things constantly change and adapt. Even the "rules" you speak of can possibly be broken if some creature adapts to be able to do this.

Yes this is true - but much of it still holds true - there aren't many quantum particles operating in your brain.
you're kidding, right?

the mere sensory reaction is caused by an influx if ions accross a membrane, ions are quantum mechanical particles...

Then let us throw off the shackles of our opressor and unite against this heartless regime that is physics. :rolleyes:

I'm sure this bothers a lot of people, but I think it's a pretty neat concept:

Because everything in our Universe is either matter or energy, and matter & energy ALWAYS act according to strict rules of physics, all outcomes in our Universe are deterministic (the outcome will always be the same with the given conditions). Because we exist in the Universe, everything we do is also deterministic. You may think it was your free will to come to this web site and click on this crazy bnut-job thread, but there were causes for everything your did. For instance, why did your browser go to this thread? Because you clicked on its header. Why did you do that? Because a nerve impulse from your brain told your hand to do it. Why did your brain do that? Because it decided that the potential benefits outweighed the risks. Why did it decide that? Well, we don't know, but ultimately it boils down to a bunch of atoms in your brain swapping electrical impulse all according to precisely defined (though perhaps unknown to us) rules. How cool is that? Think of the implications: Our world is the only one it ever could be. There are no random outcomes. There is no God. We could theoretically predict the future exactly (though we never will - the world is too complex to be predictable).

Cool, huh?

quantummechanics is non-deterministic and deterministic at the same time. it deals with probabilities so it's not strictly deterministic, but at the mathematical level it is deterministic. You're views seem to fall under Pascal's Demon because of the following:

We could theoretically predict the future exactly (though we never will - the world is too complex to be predictable).

A side note: Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of that mathematical branch itself. Thus any theory of mathematics is incomplete, and so is any theory that includes mathematics. We find that a theory that completely describes the world would still be incomplete (and hereby does not exist). So it would not even be theoretically possible to predict the future. The future itself might still be fixed if the world is deterministic.

But even if the theories we can use to describe parts of the universe aren't strictly deteministic his main argument holds water. whatever we think, feel and decide comes from the physical activity in our brains which follow their own rules and are beyond our will. Free will in this sense of the word doesn't exist.

Then let us throw off the shackles of our opressor and unite against this heartless regime that is physics. :rolleyes:

Lol. Great idea. The best one I have heard all day. :p

You are wrong. The only reason you are wrong is because the rule that everything evolves and adapts. Even if you go down to the tiny little atoms in your body you can't predict everything because things constantly change and adapt. Even the "rules" you speak of can possibly be broken if some creature adapts to be able to do this.
Say that again. It's funny.

A side note: Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of that mathematical branch itself.
I remember when I first learned about that from Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". That is one of the best books I've ever read.

Say that again. It's funny.

How is it funny??? :confused:

Yes this is true - but much of it still holds true - there aren't many quantum particles operating in your brain.
Actually there's a theory that's starting to get a little bit of hard evidence behind it that quantum effects may contribute to our "free will".

Actually there's a theory that's starting to get a little bit of hard evidence behind it that quantum effects may contribute to our "free will".

Wow I have never heard that one before but it is quite intresting if you think about it.

It's true that our bodies and brains are governed by funimental physical laws... but that does not mean that everything is deterministic. The laws of physics are loose; there appears to be room for free will and random chance. My apologies if that's been said before.

...I am suddenly reminded of the movie Waking Life.

Then let us throw off the shackles of our opressor and unite against this heartless regime that is physics. :rolleyes:
Destroy the Universe.

How is it funny??? :confused:
You said that he was wrong because of a rule that, to my knowledge, doesn't exist. Then, you said that the rules can be broken if an animal adapts that can break the rules. This animal would have to break the rules in order to adapt to be able to break the rules. Aside from that, what makes your rule immune to your adapting animals, such that it can prove him wrong?

I remember when I first learned about that from Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". That is one of the best books I've ever read.

*Aplauds and says MU under his breath*

Go read Roger Penrose as well, if you haven't already.
(The Emporer's new Mind. The Shadow of the Mind)

If this is the case then I guess I can't in good conscience insult you for starting this thread.

What you say may be true, however you will never and can never prove it.

*Aplauds and says MU under his breath*

Go read Roger Penrose as well, if you haven't already.
(The Emporer's new Mind. The Shadow of the Mind)
I actually haven't read Penrose, although I've read a lot about him.
I should go pick some of his stuff up.

You said that he was wrong because of a rule that, to my knowledge, doesn't exist. Then, you said that the rules can be broken if an animal adapts that can break the rules. This animal would have to break the rules in order to adapt to be able to break the rules. Aside from that, what makes your rule immune to your adapting animals, such that it can prove him wrong?

Lol you take things to literally. And when you say animal I will assume you include humans. And when I said the rule that everything adapts I was referring to Darwin’s popular theory and I hope that you know of this rule lol. Saying that it doesn’t exist means that you must believe in creationism. About the breaking the rules to be able to break the rules you are partly right. I just think that the rules aren't that definite and that you wouldn’t have to break the rules to say.....defy gravity or something like that you would just have to adapt to be able to (using physics to change physics), that’s just my opinion though.

You are wrong. The only reason you are wrong is because the rule that everything evolves and adapts. Even if you go down to the tiny little atoms in your body you can't predict everything because things constantly change and adapt. Even the "rules" you speak of can possibly be broken if some creature adapts to be able to do this.

Dude, you're saying that a creature can evolve to make nuclear fusion throughout the universe fail to work.

Um.

Wow.

I mean, I'm well aware of how powerful evolution is.

But.

Wow.

Dude, you're saying that a creature can evolve to make nuclear fusion throughout the universe fail to work.

Um.

Wow.

I mean, I'm well aware of how powerful evolution is.

But.

Wow.

It’s just a theory but I think that it can hold at least some water. I mean look at how little one celled creatures came to be us. I think the power of evolution is highly underestimated.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]1) Determinism doesn't negate the possibility of the "supernatural". Technically, if magic existed, it would still follow the rules of physics, it would just be that there's some really whacky things you can do with it. Say, if the electrons in your brain could align a charge in your fingertips which would build up until you shot a small lightning bolt out at something, which would have the usual effect of a large burst of electricity, etc. Supernatural entities, such as what would be reffered to as a deity (Basically a really fricking powerful magic user), would be equally effected by what occurs around them.

1) the term supernatural implies something that cannot be described by theories that can be used to describe parts of the universe. It is something that does not have to followe the 'rules of the universe' (i hate to use that term). If magic existed and it would follow the 'rules of physics', it would not be supernatural. (electricity and magnetisme might have been seen as magic in the old days).

2) If we assume that supernatural things exist, then the question is wether they affect the natural world or not:
2.1) It does not affect the world. In this case, we cannot know anything about it it wouldn't even have any importance for us. In this case it's just an unneeded factor as it would raise unanswerable questions and would not solve any questions, explain thing or be usefull to us. Anything supernatural that does not interact with the world is of nill importance.
2.2) If it does interact with the world: assume the world to be deterministic. Now a supernatural interacts with this world. The behavior of the supernatural entity cannot be described by theories that can describe parts of the world (else it would be natural), but this behavior can be deterministic or non-deterministic. if it is deterministic, one could look at the world-supernatural system and see that the combined system is deterministic and follows deterministic rules. This could be seen as the world and the supernatural would be natural again. If the behavior of the supernatural is non-deterministic, it's interaction with the world as part of this behavior would be non-deterministic and this would make the world non-deterministic.

I think that determinism does negate the existance of the supernatural that would be of any importance to us.

Actually there's a theory that's starting to get a little bit of hard evidence behind it that quantum effects may contribute to our "free will".

or if the many worlds interpretation holds, then there is no 'free will' per se. but everything that can happen does.

It's true that our bodies and brains are governed by funimental physical laws... but that does not mean that everything is deterministic. The laws of physics are loose; there appears to be room for free will and random chance. My apologies if that's been said before.

...I am suddenly reminded of the movie Waking Life.

There might be room for random chance, but this does not mean there might be room for free will. In a non-deterministic world, your brain might act different in the same situation (same state of the universe), but this is random chance and not because you want it to act different.

If you put an electron in a box, close the lid, come back later and have a look inside, you may find the electron still there......or you might not. Heisenbergs uncertainty relation allows the quantum effect of tunnelling so the electron could escape! My point is, if you repeat this little experiment over and over (all electrons are identical, they don't just kinda look the same, they are indistinguishable) and if nature was deterministic (classical) then you would expect the same result each time, i.e electron in the box. But we don't see that, quantum mechanics is probabilistic, you can't say something will defnitely happen, only the probability that it will. This idea caused a lot of people including Einstein a lot of grief. They couldn't believe that nature wasn't deterministic. Like Einstein said, "God doesn't play with dice". This led to the idea that perhaps in quantum mechanics there is some variable that we are missing that would return it to a deterministic rather than probabilistic theory. No consistent 'hidden' variable theory has to date been discovered. I personally would put my money on nature NOT being determinstic.

Someone was talking about Chaos earlier on and I think it is important to point out an important distinction here via an example. The three body problem, i.e. the gravitational force between the moon, sun and earth and predicting the resulting motion, is chaotic. This was proven! Along time ago too. But the motion is classical, there are no probabilistic effects evolved, so in this sense it is still deterministic. We just can't determine it!

1) the term supernatural implies something that cannot be described by theories that can be used to describe parts of the universe.

I take it you didn't notice the ""s on "supernatural"?

This is why I am critical of science. It leads to conclusions that devalue humanity.

Quantum mechanics basically is magic. According to the theory, before you measure a particle, there is no place in the entire universe where it couldn't be. There is never a zero probability of it being, say, at the edge of the Andromeda Galaxy until you measure it to be elsewhere. The probability of all your particles suddenly being transported 100 million miles away simultaneously is NOT impossible, but the chance of you winning every single lottery on the planet at the same time is about a trillion times more likely.

What exactly is ismology? I've never heard that term before.

Its a neologism for neologistic studies, obviously.

This is why I am critical of science. It leads to conclusions that devalue humanity.

Do the sciences of ecology, music, optometry, marine biology devalue humanity?? For someone using a computer and the internet which is pure science based, I think you need to be a bit more specific in your comment.

I'm sure this bothers a lot of people, but I think it's a pretty neat concept:

Because everything in our Universe is either matter or energy, and matter & energy ALWAYS act according to strict rules of physics, all outcomes in our Universe are deterministic (the outcome will always be the same with the given conditions). Because we exist in the Universe, everything we do is also deterministic. You may think it was your free will to come to this web site and click on this crazy bnut-job thread, but there were causes for everything your did. For instance, why did your browser go to this thread? Because you clicked on its header. Why did you do that? Because a nerve impulse from your brain told your hand to do it. Why did your brain do that? Because it decided that the potential benefits outweighed the risks. Why did it decide that? Well, we don't know, but ultimately it boils down to a bunch of atoms in your brain swapping electrical impulse all according to precisely defined (though perhaps unknown to us) rules. How cool is that? Think of the implications: Our world is the only one it ever could be. There are no random outcomes. There is no God. We could theoretically predict the future exactly (though we never will - the world is too complex to be predictable).

Cool, huh?

Thank you, I have to go slit my wrists and die now.

This is why I am critical of science. It leads to conclusions that devalue humanity.

1) Entirely based on your perspective. I always found being the result of billions of years of evolution to be rather good for my ego. My DNA's so damned good it outlived the fricking dinosaurs. Suh-weet.

2) How does the effect something has on your emotions change reality? Does rape devaluing human sexuality mean that it doesn't happen?

Do the sciences of ecology, music, optometry, marine biology devalue humanity?? For someone using a computer and the internet which is pure science based, I think you need to be a bit more specific in your comment.

Don't blame her, after all she didn't have any choice in the matter according to our Determinist friends.

Physics?

Bleh.

Don't blame her, after all she didn't have any choice in the matter according to our Determinist friends.

Ah, but in blaming, we can make an attempt to alter her or other individuals' determinable attitudes, resulting in an environment which is more pleasant for us, which we are determined to seek.

Don't blame her, after all she didn't have any choice in the matter according to our Determinist friends.

I'm male, actually. The name was made up for the name of my nation.

You are wrong. The only reason you are wrong is because the rule that everything evolves and adapts. Even if you go down to the tiny little atoms in your body you can't predict everything because things constantly change and adapt. Even the "rules" you speak of can possibly be broken if some creature adapts to be able to do this.
I already said you can't predict everything: think Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The "rules" I speak of are the physical laws every atom and every unit of energy must abide by...so no "creature" could ever break the rules unless it was made of something other than matter and energy.

Dakini said: "ions are quantum mechanical particles..."

'Scuse me?

Not quite. :rolleyes:

If you put an electron in a box, close the lid, come back later and have a look inside, you may find the electron still there......or you might not. Heisenbergs uncertainty relation allows the quantum effect of tunnelling so the electron could escape! My point is, if you repeat this little experiment over and over (all electrons are identical, they don't just kinda look the same, they are indistinguishable) and if nature was deterministic (classical) then you would expect the same result each time, i.e electron in the box. But we don't see that, quantum mechanics is probabilistic, you can't say something will defnitely happen, only the probability that it will. This idea caused a lot of people including Einstein a lot of grief. They couldn't believe that nature wasn't deterministic. Like Einstein said, "God doesn't play with dice". This led to the idea that perhaps in quantum mechanics there is some variable that we are missing that would return it to a deterministic rather than probabilistic theory. No consistent 'hidden' variable theory has to date been discovered. I personally would put my money on nature NOT being determinstic.

Someone was talking about Chaos earlier on and I think it is important to point out an important distinction here via an example. The three body problem, i.e. the gravitational force between the moon, sun and earth and predicting the resulting motion, is chaotic. This was proven! Along time ago too. But the motion is classical, there are no probabilistic effects evolved, so in this sense it is still deterministic. We just can't determine it!
Show me two distinct times when an electron was put in a box and the state of every other particle in the universe was the same. According to determinism, it can't happen, since we'd go in a loop. O.K., I guess we could be going in loops, for all I can tell. However, it hasn't happened twice in this loop. There are just too many variables to take into account when trying to determine what will happen to a quantum particle. Our only choice is to use statistics. That doesn't make the universe non-deterministic.

In actuality, determinism vs. non-determinism is another one of those God vs. no God debates. Both are logically consistent with anything you can throw at them.

This is why I am critical of science. It leads to conclusions that devalue humanity.
If you insist. However, it is only those ignorant of science that ever say that. That would be the fear of the unknown speaking in you. Science makes everything so much more beautiful. Though, I must admit, science highly devalues humanity in the sense that it shows us out true value, not our egotistical conception of our value.

Its a neologism for neologistic studies, obviously.
No, I looked it up, and apparently it would be the study of -isms. Though it is indeed a neologism, no doubt about that. Though I'm rather offended that just because I know the terminology, he would say "isomology" to me. Simply because I'm well read...

I always found being the result of billions of years of evolution to be rather good for my ego.
Only kind of. It's really more your DNA that is the result of evolution, and you're merely its vessel. Not to mention the fact that all of biota might even be a transitory stage between silicates. That would truly be mind blowing if it turned out to even have a scrap of truth. This is getting into the Cairns-Smith theory of abiogenesis, though.

My DNA's so damned good it outlived the fricking dinosaurs. Suh-weet.
You are, of course, aware that the mammilian DNA during the Mesozoic Era was not quite your DNA...in fact it's very, very different. You didn'toutlive the dinosaurs, that would be your ancestors. Though I must state that ants, which first emerged during the Cretaceous Period, have far outlived the dinosaurs.

No, I looked it up, and apparently it would be the study of -isms. Though it is indeed a neologism, no doubt about that. Though I'm rather offended that just because I know the terminology, he would say "isomology" to me. Simply because I'm well read...


You can find neologistic studies under "a joke", apparently... ;)

You can find neologistic studies under "a joke", apparently... ;)
But I like tangents!

Though I must state that ants, which first emerged during the Cretaceous Period, have far outlived the dinosaurs.

Pshaw, Isoptera > Hymenoptera

Pshaw, Isoptera > Hymenoptera
Oh, I know you didn't just dis Hymenoptera. 'Cause I'm about to open up a can of driver ants on your wussy "white ants". Order Hymenoptera is considered the most evolved of all insects. And ants, family Formicidae, are the most populous animals on the planet. Let's see what termite can compare to a bullet ant. "Oh no, the little maggot bit me!" compared to "Holy fucking crap the pain of this sting from Paraponera clavata feels like my arm has been flayed multiple times over! Christ Jesus, save my damned soul from this unbearable suffering!". "Oh, look. There's a termite colony" -- "Sweet mother of god, there is a column of Siafu coming this way! :eek: EVACUATE THE VILLAGE! IMMEDIATELY!!!"

Hymenoptera > Eukaryota

0wned.

Oh, I know you didn't just dis Hymenoptera. 'Cause I'm about to open up a can of driver ants on your wussy "white ants". Order Hymenoptera is considered the most evolved of all insects. And ants, family Formicidae, are the most populous animals on the planet. Let's see what termite can compare to a bullet ant. "Oh no, the little maggot bit me!" compared to "Holy fucking crap the pain of this sting from Paraponera clavata feels like my arm has been flayed multiple times over! Christ Jesus, save my damned soul from this unbearable suffering!". "Oh, look. There's a termite colony" -- "Sweet mother of god, there is a column of Siafu coming this way! :eek: EVACUATE THE VILLAGE! IMMEDIATELY!!!"

Hymenoptera > Eukaryota

0wned.

One word. Biomass.

I already said you can't predict everything: think Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

We could theoretically predict the future exactly (though we never will - the world is too complex to be predictable).

This appears to be like the infmaous cat. Either we can or we can't.

And the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) doesn't say the world is too complex to predict. ;)

One word. Biomass.
Which ants also happen to have under their belt.

Which ants also happen to have under their belt.

Well, when I was a young 'un they always gave that to the termites.

We're all slaves of physics!

You may be, pal, but I bought the upgrade.

Well, when I was a young 'un they always gave that to the termites.
I'm pretty damn sure that it's ants, though I admit I have no evidence for this. I do know that ants are the most populous, but if termites are significantly heavier, then it might be possible. Though I have studied Isoptera some, since they are eusocial insects as well, my passion is Hymenoptera, especially Formicidae.

I'm pretty damn sure that it's ants, though I admit I have no evidence for this. I do know that ants are the most populous, but if termites are significantly heavier, then it might be possible. Though I have studied Isoptera some, since they are eusocial insects as well, my passion is Hymenoptera, especially Formicidae.

It is entirely possible that you are correct, after all either case is only supported by "best" estimates. It could well be that opnion has changed in the past twenty odd years.

Naturally, I am also unable to provide evidence. I could cite to my biology notes, but given that I can't find them, I doubt you could either.

When I looked at the thread, I misread this is "We're all slaves of psychics!"
:D

Oh, quantum mechanics throws off the whole determinism argument, if it's true.
QM only may do that if quantum uncertainty is an inherent property, and not the emergent property of some other deterministic process. It also relies on the failure of the theory of decoherence.

2) Chaos is neither proven nor disproven. However, the sheer number of variables in the way things work make it highly unlikely we'll be able to predict all events.
Chaos is proven. It's a logical consequence of certain dynamic systems. It's also observable in natural systems.

You are wrong. The only reason you are wrong is because the rule that everything evolves and adapts. Even if you go down to the tiny little atoms in your body you can't predict everything because things constantly change and adapt. Even the "rules" you speak of can possibly be broken if some creature adapts to be able to do this.
Adaptive and self-adaptive systems are still deterministic and (theoretically, if not practically) predictable.

A side note: Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of that mathematical branch itself. Thus any theory of mathematics is incomplete, and so is any theory that includes mathematics. We find that a theory that completely describes the world would still be incomplete (and hereby does not exist). So it would not even be theoretically possible to predict the future. The future itself might still be fixed if the world is deterministic.Actually, the first of the two incompleteness theorems says that within the mathematical formulization that you're working (assuming you can axiomaticize the natural numbers), there will be true statements that are unprovable. Remember, they're true.

The second says that no consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency. However, the system is still consistent.

Neither of these somehow imply the future is unpredictable. It does, however, put a dark shadow over the hope of finding that mathematics and physics combine into some glorious self justifying set of theories.

It's true that our bodies and brains are governed by funimental physical laws... but that does not mean that everything is deterministic. The laws of physics are loose; there appears to be room for free will and random chance. My apologies if that's been said before.If it's not deterministic it must be stochastic. I don't know where free will would fit in that, but it's not part of physics as we know it, and it's no more comforting. In fact, instead of doing things for a reason, you do things because of randomness. That's even less pleasant.

If you put an electron in a box, close the lid, come back later and have a look inside, you may find the electron still there......or you might not. Heisenbergs uncertainty relation allows the quantum effect of tunnelling so the electron could escape! My point is, if you repeat this little experiment over and over (all electrons are identical, they don't just kinda look the same, they are indistinguishable) and if nature was deterministic (classical) then you would expect the same result each time, i.e electron in the box. But we don't see that, quantum mechanics is probabilistic, you can't say something will defnitely happen, only the probability that it will. This idea caused a lot of people including Einstein a lot of grief. They couldn't believe that nature wasn't deterministic. Like Einstein said, "God doesn't play with dice". This led to the idea that perhaps in quantum mechanics there is some variable that we are missing that would return it to a deterministic rather than probabilistic theory. No consistent 'hidden' variable theory has to date been discovered. I personally would put my money on nature NOT being determinstic.Presumably you're referring to Schroedinger's cat. Well, first of all Schroedinger was pointing out something he felt was very strange about quantum uncertainty, and observer effect. He wasn't implying that these half-state cats would exist. I suspect, anyway, that the cat, the gun and whatelse have you acts as an observer (it doesn't need to be a human, or even alive). The important point though is whether or not that quantum uncertainty manifests itself on the scale that is important to the discussion. In this instance, it's whether uncertainty manifests itself in the phenomena in the brain responsible for thought. Since it's not clear exactly how thought works, it's a matter of debate. But it appears that thought is an electro-chemical process occuring well above the point of decoherence (where quantum uncertainty smoothes out into something deterministic).

Someone was talking about Chaos earlier on and I think it is important to point out an important distinction here via an example. The three body problem, i.e. the gravitational force between the moon, sun and earth and predicting the resulting motion, is chaotic. This was proven! Along time ago too. But the motion is classical, there are no probabilistic effects evolved, so in this sense it is still deterministic. We just can't determine it!I can generate for you a dynamic system that has chaos as an emergent property, and we can see what happens. What is key about chaos is you need perfect knowledge of the initial conditions, not just a rough idea and the rules of the system. If you don't, when you reach the bifurcations in the chaotic area, the imprecision explodes very suddenly, and you'll be nowhere near where you hoped to be. I do know that they can predict the positions of the planets in the solar system for the next million years or so, and in a million years' time it would be possible to adjust that error (effectively resetting the model with contemporary observations). So that's basically Laplace's demon right there.

This is how I think it goes with people. The brain is the product of millions of years of evolution (probably about a billion in fact). It's a tool for survival and continuation of the genes. It takes in information, makes judgements and then puts it into action.

The alternative, it would seem, is that people act without reason. And that's a little ludicrous. Not many people believe that. How many times do we look for a reason for someone to do something? And how many times do we just say 'oh, they're just exercising their free will today'? So it's not like many of us behave as if other people have free will, but we expect that we, ourselves, have it.

I don't think the fact that we're a deterministic system somehow means we aren't self determining. Sure, some of what we do is influenced by the outside. But when our brain makes a judgement, that's us making that judgement. Our brain is indestinguishable from us. Also, you can observe your own thoughts (I hope you can anyway, I know I can). That suggests to me that people can make their own decisions about things. Sure, ultimately you can trace the resulting decision back to some events not inside the brain, but it's not much worse than having free will (whatever that would be).

Not that any of this really needs to be justified. Either people are deterministic or not. It's not a matter of which is more comforting, and not does determinism mean that people have to have internally consistent beliefs.

Chaos is proven. It's a logical consequence of certain dynamic systems. It's also observable in natural systems.


Wait, so you're telling me science has claimed that there are, without a doubt, events that cannot be predicted even with absolute knowledge of the workings of existance and absolute knowledge of the positions of all things in existance, and all information that can possibly effect that, occur?

Lacking that information, how did they come to the conclusion?

Mind you, I'm not saying that chaos isn't possible, but I'd love to see how chaos has become the only scientific fact ever absolutely proven so cleanly and quickly, rather than being a likely theory. I mean cripes, -gravity- is a theory.

Wait, so you're telling me science has claimed that there are, without a doubt, events that cannot be predicted even with absolute knowledge of the workings of existance and absolute knowledge of the positions of all things in existance, and all information that can possibly effect that, occur?


No, rather he is saying that absent perfect knowledge, the behavior of certain dynamic systems cannot be predicted. In layman's terms their responses are not a smooth continous function of their inputs.

Think of it this way. For any given specific initial conditions there is one, and only one, particular outcome for a given system. However, it is impossible to perfectly know the value of these initial conditions. Further, small divergences in these conditions - so small that they occur well within the margin of uncertainty* for any measurment - produce widely divergent outcomes. Thus to our observations, the system behaves chaotically. In other words, two systems that are measured as having identical indentical systems will produce completely different responses.

Nevertheless, this is a result of inadequate mathmatical models and mesurement errors however, and not a fundamental property of the system. Problems arising in weather forecasting are of this type.


*uncertianty of measurement, not to be confused with quantum mechanics.

Chaos is something that has no predictable outcome, not just one that is too hard to be predicted.

Take that semi-famous scene in Jurassic Park, where the chaos theory guy dribbles a drop of water down the botanist's hand. Where that drop ended up -was- predictable. With careful study of the exact conditions, how the woman's skin was shaped, how the oils on her skin are built up, etc, you could figure out where the water would hit.

That's not chaos, that's just too complex to bother with.

Last I checked, it was impossible to perfectly replicate an experiment.

Chaos is something that has no predictable outcome, not just one that is too hard to be predicted.

Take that semi-famous scene in Jurassic Park, where the chaos theory guy dribbles a drop of water down the botanist's hand. Where that drop ended up -was- predictable. With careful study of the exact conditions, how the woman's skin was shaped, how the oils on her skin are built up, etc, you could figure out where the water would hit.

That's not chaos, that's just too complex to bother with.

No, chaos is an emergent property of complex systems. For the reasons I outlined above. In the event that it was possible to create two chaotic systems with perfectly identical initial conditions, they would behave in an identical fashion. They are not random processes.

No, chaos is an emergent property of complex systems. For the reasons I outlined above. In the event that it was possible to create two chaotic systems with perfectly identical initial conditions, they would behave in an identical fashion. They are not random processes.

Last I checked the concept of chaos was a bit earlier than quantum physics. It's where the world pops up in many mythologies.

Now, the sound 'chaos' and the spelling may have been adapted for illustrative use in something that equates to "we can't do it", but that doesn't negate the original concept of the word.

As such, this may be a communication problem: I try to avoid the latest lingo in favor of the closer-to-original-definition meaning, to avoid something like "That ice cube is cool" meaning "That ice cube is laid back and self-confident"

What you seem to mean to say is, "Scientists have proven that there are situations where, due to the limits of science and reality, we cannot predict the outcome, nor replicate it. We have used the mythological term "Chaos" to describe it in short, since that's easier for a layman to nod to."

Am I right? Close at least? Ballpark?

Meh. Language.

Last I checked the concept of chaos was a bit earlier than quantum physics. It's where the world pops up in many mythologies.

Now, the sound 'chaos' and the spelling may have been adapted for illustrative use in something that equates to "we can't do it", but that doesn't negate the original concept of the word.

As such, this may be a communication problem: I try to avoid the latest lingo in favor of the closer-to-original-definition meaning, to avoid something like "That ice cube is cool" meaning "That ice cube is laid back and self-confident"

What you seem to mean to say is, "Scientists have proven that there are situations where, due to the limits of science and reality, we cannot predict the outcome, nor replicate it. We have used the mythological term "Chaos" to describe it in short, since that's easier for a layman to nod to."

Am I right? Close at least? Ballpark?

Meh. Language.


I think that is a fair description, within limits.

:D *nods* Gotcha.

My statement (all of my statements) about chaos are under the definition as described in mythology, as a force with a truly random nature that cannot in any way be predicted. In all honesty, like many mystically-originated concepts, it can't really be proven or unproven, since you could say "The universe is chaotic, it just happens not to be showing it right now", which is perfectly possible in a chaotic system, and, just as easily, "The universe isn't chaotic, we just haven't learned enough yet to predict events."

Your usage, on the other hand, is, as you stated, simply logical, and as such I agree with it.

I just wish they didn't steal the mythological term to confuse the issue. :D

Wait, so you're telling me science has claimed that there are, without a doubt, events that cannot be predicted even with absolute knowledge of the workings of existance and absolute knowledge of the positions of all things in existance, and all information that can possibly effect that, occur?.

No - but science does claim this type of omniscience is impossible. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states for instance that one cannot know the exact momentum ('speed') and location of a particle at the exact same time. Not because our measuring equipment is not good enough, but as a fundamental property.
In addition electrons (well, fermions in fact) are indistinguishable: you cannot say this is fermion A and that is fermion B and the difference is... - because they can change position any time they wish. You don't know which is which; hell.. God doesn't know which is which.

*nods*

Oh, I know that predictions are not -functionally- possible.

It's just that there's a difference between "there's no measure" and "we can't measure".

*nods*

Oh, I know that predictions are not -functionally- possible.

It's just that there's a difference between "there's no measure" and "we can't measure".

That's comparing apples an oranges however. Consider aerodynamics. Airflow systems can exhibit chaotic behavior - for want of a better term - but that's a function of inability to measure. It has nothing to do with quantum uncertainties. (Probably).

On the other hand, it is widely believed that accurate measurement at the quantum level is impossible because, amongst other things, of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Thus the reasons that outcomes cannot be predicted in each respective case is different.

That is not to say that either system is not deterministic however; that's an open question. It is possible that neither one is determinable, yet still deterministic.

Which is precisely my point.

As for predictability in aerodynamics, everything is composed of all the smaller particles: You can predict the larger effect, but not all the details.

Sure, you can predict that ~A pounds of force will be shunted in this direction XYZ with B amount of temperature and such, but you won't be predicting the location of every single particle of every size in that air stream.

Essentially, we agree, so, eh.

Which is precisely my point.

As for predictability in aerodynamics, everything is composed of all the smaller particles: You can predict the larger effect, but not all the details.

Sure, you can predict that ~A pounds of force will be shunted in this direction XYZ with B amount of temperature and such, but you won't be predicting the location of every single particle of every size in that air stream.

Essentially, we agree, so, eh.

Well except you can observe chaos in far simpler systems that aerodynamic ones. For example compound pendula.

Think of it this way: Chaotic behavior would be observed, even if there was no heisenberg uncertainty principle, because it is not a result of quantum interaction.

Maybe this will help. Link (http://www.exploratorium.edu/turbulent/CompLexicon/chaos.html)

Dude, all that does is show that the difference between 1+1+1 and .999999999+.999999999 become more visible as you continue.

I'm well aware of how scientific chaos works. It's a rather simple concept.

The only issue was that we were using two different definitions of chaos.