The name for the point where a probability changes

Syamsu, probabilities IMO are statistictical but also a word used to describe the "chances" of a xyz outcome. A 'prediction'. Does a prediction actually exist? The point where a probability changes does not have a scientific word to my knowlege. I think scientist just say "the point where probability changed". Much like the melting point and freezing point are the same temperature in physics. In gambling the word is called the "Odds". If the Odds change then the bets of a probable outcome change as well. The Odds swing in favor or against, and based on this the bets are placed. The probability is calculated based on data, past data and present data is assessed and the future outcome predicted based on this data. The more information/data the more accurate the prediction. Does the Odds changing affect the actualization of an event? No, but it does make the Probability of XYZ happening greater. Take a walk down the Las Vegas strip and I think you will get the jest of what I am saying. .

So what would I observe if I had a digital recorder with a transmitter to feed video images to a monitor outside the box (without opening the box ?) edit typo.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-28-2004 12:55 AM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

And still further off topic but....My point was that macroscopic comparisons of actualizing events such as schrodingers cat are not sufficient IMO to explain how "observation" can affect how reality plays out. The cat is said to be in (super-postion). Observation on a quantum level does seem to favor what the observer is trying to measure. If one sets up an experiment to measure the position of a particle then the velocity will not be known. However a prediction can be made. There are even experiments set up to collect data on a particle after a measurement has been taken in an attempt to "fool" the particle into collapsing a predetermined wavefunction. The uncertainty principal is still valid. The particle always knows or is somehow affected when measurements are taken. I do not know why or how the 'spookiness' of quantum behavior evades full knowlege of both vector and velocity of a particle. Percy will probably know though.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hello Syamsu,
you make a good point. But.... IMO the "realization" of the universe is simply the universe. Some say it was caused, some say it just is and always was with no fixed point. No singularity. Science does not know yet the answer. But I do believe the universe is determinate . The laws of physics are fixed, but that does not mean reality adheres to those laws. The uncertainty principal, Virtual particles, radiation, quantum fluctuations, and a host of randomness prevades what we call reality IMO. So something is obviously not adding up in human beings understanding of how randomness can occur despite fixed laws. No need to argue that science can KNOW with enough data the outcome of every coin toss. The coin could in fact tunnel through the table on toss 11million according to quantum physics scientist. Just last night I watched a program where Steven Hawking was explaining how "not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they can not be seen." Referencing black holes. So I agree with you that we do not live in a clockwork universe, but I do not agree that humans can know one way or the other how or why it exist in the first place. God of the gaps does not suffice for me. I do want to believe there is a reason, but only because I do not like the alternative of nihlism which I believe is the final destination of removing God/ ID from the picture. But if God did create the universe then the next logical question is what created God?
Happy New year. I expect WoundedKing will be around the corner with a sledgehammer Ha Ha!!**edit typo**edit 2 fix more errors.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-29-2004 11:52 AMThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-29-2004 14:23 AM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

The box is a closed system. The cat is in super-position of being dead/alive. The opening of the system and making an observation would in theory collapse the wave function and actualize the cat as either dead or alive. Im am asking what if a observation can be made without collapsing the wave function or without "opening the box" ? Would the cat be smeered out into this quasi state of alive/dead? How does a wave function know it is being observed on a macroscopic scale. The act of observing on the quantum level changes the very thing you are trying to observe. My question is do you believe that Schrodingers Cat is
actually existing in a state of superposition?

Here we go again!!!
Hello, if randomness is indeed a phenomenon in reality, If identical starting points can produce different outcomes then how can one defend determinism? I thought we hashed this all out before. I believe determinism exist up to a point, but reality can not be "nailed" down. Not only because humans can never know all the data of the system, but because the system itself is indeterminate IMO.

I am still puzzled about (weather)...ha ha.. or not randomness, such as radio active decay, or virtual particals, or the uncertainty principal are considered truly random. From what I have read and heard the universe is not purely deterministic. Science can predict reality if enough data is known and if we can model the system, but we can not KNOW because according to physics gurus the very nature of what makes up reality is not 100% certain, hence the uncertainty principal. I agree that probablility does not affect outcomes, it only allows us a confidence interval.
Pure determinism is impossible, even if you know 99.9999999out to infinity you still do not know the rest. Even if one atom is out of wack the whole apple cart is upset. Why I dig my heels in on this is obvious, I like the idea of free will. I have given up on the idea of a old testiment god, but this is my line in the cosmic sand. edit typoThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-06-2005 14:28 AM

Hi wounded king, I will leave it at that. My world has not collapsed, I can still anchor whats left of my faith on that stray particle no one can pin down. Take care

Hello, That's fantastic. This has not been established. If this is so then Dr. Heisenberg must be incorrect.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hello, I may have misunderstood your statement. (Wave function 'evolving in deterministic fashion') does that mean the wave function 'appears' or 'seems' to be deterministic? Or does it mean the wave function IS deterministic? You see its alright to say, the universe APPEARS to be deterministic,,,or reality SEEMS to be deterministic. But to state point blank that we live in a deterministic universe seems presumptuous IMO.Heisenberg's uncertainty principal states that one can NEVER know both a particles velocity and vector. If a wave function is purely deterministic then what would stop one from measuring both position and speed? If a particle behaves in a deterministic fashion then one could KNOW with absolute certainty the path it will take. If I am not mistaken this is in violation of the uncertainty principal.
*note that a particle and wavefunction are interchangable. I like to call it a wavacle.Randomness is in direct opposition to determinism, if there is randomness in the universe, then how can the universe be purely deterministic? One can not have it both ways IMO.

Hi Peeper,
Because a wave function "evolves in a deterministic fashion" does not mean the Universe is purely deterministic. I am simply stating that it is not been established that the universe is purely deterministic. For various reasons.
I am not a physicist, so the math is lost on me, I do read well and leave it to real physicist to digest the information. As far as I have read the physical laws of the universe are yet indeterminate. If this is incorrect then point me to where you have read that we live in a strictley determinate universe. I am all about wanting to know the lastest scientific descovery. Take care **edit typo.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-10-2005 16:00 AM

Hi Peeper, awww. I thought it had good references. And it was rather concise. No, I never argued that. I am only stating that the universe is not purely determinate. Schrodingers equation as you state can predict to as many decimals as you like and give determinism proponants orgasms, but from what I read still not pure determinism. It is determinism on a reduced scale. REDUCED as in not a complete picture. Unless I misunderstood Stephan Hawking. The very next thing he said was: And.... I mean there is no unifying theory , no theory of everything. Unless something has been discovered recent that I have missed. I am not sure you understand my point Peeper, I am not arguing that things can not be predicted with accuracy, I am not arguing that QM is not complete, I am not saying any of those things. I am merely saying that if randomness exist in the universe in any form then pure determinism does not. The way it looks to me is the universe is deterministic up to a point, beyond that who can really say?Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia
Radioactive decay - Wikipedia
http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/...s/StephenHawking20030308.htm
*edit linkThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-11-2005 12:03 AM

And I have no problem with that...the incompleteness may be our lack of understanding. The Jury still out. Perhaps someday Wounded King you can post " I knew it ,, I was right all along, the universe is fully deterministic!!!!"