Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 262 of 301 (723839)
04-09-2014 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Son Goku
04-08-2014 7:44 AM


Re: Double talk..
Son Goku writes:
kbertsche writes:
Better, but to avoid confusion I recommend completely eliminating the word "uncaused". How about, "The time of decay of any particular nucleus is stochastic"?
Well the timing is not stochastic. That's the important thing. The probabilities in quantum mechanics obey relations (e.g. Bell's inequalities, Kochen-Specker, e.t.c.) that mean they are fundamentally different from normal probabilities.
Essentially the probabilities you meet in standard probability theory (stochastic processes, probabilities use in betting, e.t.c.) have mathematical properties that imply they result from your lack of knowledge about the system. The probabilities in quantum mechanics break these relations and imply the probabilities are fundamental, that there is no "deeper truth".
But the probabilities for radioactive decay are not unique or mysterious at all; they just follow a simple Poisson distribution, like many classical probabilistic processes. Classical problems, such as the frequency of calls into a call center, have probabilities which follow the same relations and are just as fundamental, with no "deeper truth".
Son Guku writes:
All that is caused are the probabilities.
Exactly. The probabilities of decay are caused by the nuclear details and energetics. The radioactivity, the radioactive decay, has a cause. Hence, it is very misleading (if not outright wrong) to say that radioactive decay is uncaused. This claim relies on a different definition of "causation" than is normally used by scientists who work with radioactivity (see post #212).
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Son Goku, posted 04-08-2014 7:44 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2014 12:16 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2014 1:16 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2014 1:59 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 269 by Son Goku, posted 04-12-2014 6:19 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 266 of 301 (723912)
04-10-2014 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by PaulK
04-10-2014 1:59 AM


Re: Probabilities and models: A side point
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
Exactly. The probabilities of decay are caused by the nuclear details and energetics.
You picked a very odd way to making this point. Instead of making it directly you seemed to imply some deeper cause above and beyond the probabilities.
Yes, I implied that there is something that causes the probabilities to be what they are.
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
Hence, it is very misleading (if not outright wrong) to say that radioactive decay is uncaused.
I would disagree. It is certainly true that there is nothing that causes the atom to decay at one time rather than another.
I would agree that the timing of any individual nuclear decay is non-deterministic and is stochastic.
PaulK writes:
As a side-note I would point out that the latter part of the kalam argument - at least in William Lane Craig's formulation - denies that this form of causation is possible at all.
I don't quite follow what you are saying; can you please expand on your statement?
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
Classical problems, such as the frequency of calls into a call center, have probabilities which follow the same relations and are just as fundamental, with no "deeper truth".
While this is a side issue, I believe that you have misinterpreted the point. In the case of most classical problems a stochastic model is used for convenience, because it captures the important details without going into a huge amount of work. The underlying causes may be disconnected from the points of interest, or simply be unnecessary details. In the case of spontaneous nuclear decay there is no more detailed level at all.
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.
1) In terms of the statistics, all that we need to know is the independent nature of events, so that that they follow Poisson statistics. For both problems, nothing deeper is needed to predict the bahavior of the system.
2) In both systems, something deeper is fundamentally driving the behavior. For the caller, it is the individual psychology and all external and internal influences on the individual. For the nuclear decay, it is the details and energy levels of the nucleus. Why does tritium decay so much faster than uranium? Why do they decay with different mechanisms? There are deeper causes for these things.
3)In both systems, we cannot predict the behavior of the individual (nucleus or caller). In the nuclear case, I do not believe that this is possible in principle (no "hidden variables"). In the caller case, this would require knowing all of the details of every individual's psychology and all external and internal influences on each individual. Perhaps this is knowable in principle, but I strongly doubt it.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2014 1:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2014 9:43 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 268 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2014 1:24 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 275 of 301 (724711)
04-19-2014 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by PaulK
04-11-2014 1:24 AM


Causation and nuclear decay
PaulK writes:
I note that you replied to the text of one message, but used the reply button on the other, confusing the threading. I have restored the title.
No, I responded to the text of TWO of your messages using the reply button on ONE of them.
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
Yes, I implied that there is something that causes the probabilities to be what they are.
No. As I said it looked very much as if you were implying an additional cause of the regularities. Simply arguing that the probabilities were determined would have better been done directly - and much better when considering a single atom than looking at the aggregate behaviour of large numbers.
I don't understand your objection. The physics causes the decay probability (hence the half-life and expected life) to be what it is. The decay probability remains a constant, independent of the age of the nucleus, hence gives rise to a probabilistic Poisson distribution.
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
I would agree that the timing of any individual nuclear decay is non-deterministic and is stochastic.
You seem to be trying very hard to avoid the use of "uncaused" even when it is perfectly appropriate. Still, it is good that you agree that I was correct on this point.
As I've argued multiple times, using the term "uncaused" for nuclear decay is misleading and disingenuous. Is emission of a fluorescent photon "uncaused"? Is photon emission from an LED "uncaused"? These and many, many other physical processes rely on the probabilistic decay of an excited state. The exact lifetime of any particular atom/nucleus is finite, stochastic, and non-deterministic. Does this mean that its decay and results are "uncaused"?
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
I don't quite follow what you are saying; can you please expand on your statement?
In trying to claim that the cause of our universe was a personal cause, Craig argues that impersonal causes always act immediately when the relevant conditions are present. THis is clearly not the case with spontaneous nuclear decay since we know that it can only be described probabilistically, with no causal element dictating the timing of the decay.
I'm probably not as familiar with WLC's arguments as you are, and I don't know whether or not you are characterizing him accurately. But as should be obvious to anyone with scientific training, most physical processes are not immediate, but have short, finite (and probabilistic) timing. If nuclear decay is called "uncaused", then to be consistent most other physical processes must also be called "uncaused".
PaulK writes:
kbertsche writes:
2) In both systems, something deeper is fundamentally driving the behavior. For the caller, it is the individual psychology and all external and internal influences on the individual. For the nuclear decay, it is the details and energy levels of the nucleus. Why does tritium decay so much faster than uranium? Why do they decay with different mechanisms? There are deeper causes for these things.
You seem to be missing the point, In the case of classical system there is a deeper causal explanation of the events, in the case of spontaneous nuclear decay the deeper model only affects the probabilities. This is a quite important difference.
What about emission of a fluorescent photon? Emission of a photon from an LED? The molecular and solid state physics "only affects the probabilities" here, too.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2014 1:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2014 12:20 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 277 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2014 2:37 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 278 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2014 3:57 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 279 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2014 10:00 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2014 10:07 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024