The name for the point where a probability changes

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.

Please do not think I am trying to belittle you, I am not. First, what is a function?A function from a set of D to a set R is a rule that assigns a single element of R to each element of D..The word single in the definition means that each input in the function’s domain has only one output in the range..Thomas and Finney, Calculus and Analytical Geometry, p.12Therefore, the waveFUNCTION has one, and only one, output for a given input.In order to determine the evolution of the wavefuntion one uses separation of variables in the Schrodinger equation. This allows one to solve for the initial wavefuntion state at time zero. The wavefunction then evolves (deterministically) according to the time dependent Schrodinger equation.This idea is born out experimentally in the use of such things as MRI, where the transitions (probability) among excited states is uniquely determined by the evolution of the wavefunction.Therefore, the wavefunction evolves deterministically (according to the Schrodinger equation). But the wavefunction, in and of itself, is not real. What in the hell does this mean?

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

Wow, you might want to try a more creditable source than the link you cited. If you want to argue that QM is not a complete theory, be my guest, but be prepared to back it up with experiment.What do you mean that the physical laws of the universe are yet indeterminate?As far as I know, nothing gives us a more exact picture of physical phenomena than QM.How many decimal places would satisfy you?

false. I am saying that no matter how well informed you are with any probability it is no guarantee of the result, that there is NO link between probability and what really happens, because probability is a mental guess about reality.perhaps instead of making more false representations of my position you could try answering the questions posed to you.you seem to have established a pattern of obfustication here.http://EvC Forum: The name for the point where a probability changes http://EvC Forum: The name for the point where a probability changes http://EvC Forum: The name for the point where a probability changes

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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

I have to point out that on a previous thread on this topic I had already provided you with a quote from Hawking to the effect that... So perhaps you did misunderstand Hawking, or at least put undue emphasis on one particular statement. The incompleteness of the picture may be due to our lack of understanding.TTFN,WK

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!!!!"

But will I be able to feel that I have achieved anything when I do it?TTFN,WKP.S. Despit the impression some people have, I am not really such a hard determinist as all that.

There is no patter of obfuscation. Why don't you just STOP to think in terms of "cause and effect" when talking about "realizations on probabilities". It is one thing that is different as "cause and effect". I make no attempt whatsoever to slyly suggest a "cause and effect" relationship between "probability and realization", that is all in your own mind, because you can't think outside the box of "cause and effect" (very difficult, but still you are also stubborn and unwilling to step outside the box).I claim that things going one way or another is basicly magic yes, that something goes on inside the determination, but as established it can't be cause and effect, it is other. I never said this claim was in evidence, that something goes on inside a determination, beyond the basic description of a probability that get's realized. I only said we should give a name to that point where a probability changes, and that people in general, like me, would also attribute magic to that point.As before I don't have a clue what you mean when you say "what happens, happens regardless of the probability" For as far as I know it only means that small probabilities also can get realized. So? So what? What's the point?ok how relevant is it to know that at some point there was a 1 percent chance of the holocaust, but it did in fact occur, zilch? Historian Klaus Fischer wouldn't agree. I use the terror of the holocaust as an example here to stamp it into your head, that knowledge about things going one way or the other is important. Why don't you get this simple idea, which you practice in everyday life all the time, your common knowledge about things going one way or another.I suggest you, and also Wounded King tell about your motivation to take the position that you do. That you do some investigation about it, why you take "cause and effect" to such an extreme that the resulting belief in it, in my opinion can only be typified as a sort of scientism. Far beyond the borders of a reasonable practical science, where probability and realization are neccessary, and need to be applied in many cases.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I am motivated in my position, that we do not know whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic and therefore cannot know whether there are any 'true' probabilities rather than simply human estimations of probability, because I have seen no evidence anywhere that we know one way or another whether the universe is deterministic.All I object to is you automatically assuming that it is and then making that assumption the basis for a rather loose and fairly pointless alternative approach to studying natural history/ evolution. The magic bit is beside the point, the very fact that you claim that things can go one way or another is a totally unwarranted assumption for which you have never provided any evidence. So you have a quote from Fischer to back this up do you, something showing the importance he ascribes to probability calculations for historical events with particular reference to one at the p=0.01 level?TTFN,WK

Motivation is typically accompanied by emotions, not solely logic. So what is the emotional basis here, you haven't given any insight.I have some idea about what it is, and I told you before, ruthlessness, brutality etc. the typical hollywoodesque "mad scientist" syndrome. Now you tell me, in all honesty.As referred to several times before, Klaus Fischer lifts out predeterminism as the most lethal attribute of communist and nazi ideology. He also says that it is important we shouldn't make the same mistake in reconstructing the history of the holocaust, that we make it appear as though the holocaust was somehow inevitable to happen in describing the causes. That we should pay attention to decisions, contingencies and whatnot. I don't have the quote handy, it's from memory. It's in the first chapter or so. That point about "decisions", is the particular message that stands out of that history of the holocaust. One would certainly remember it having read it.You are just taking a swipe now at science of history I think.You say that you are not such a hard determinist in your beliefs. How do you reconcile that with your manypost diatribe that it is somehow very significant that I have no absolute proof of the fundamental nature of the universe? As before, it is you who is making the unwarranted assertion of certainty, by attributing so much importance to knowing the "fundamental nature of the universe". You have yet to show that you can know anything about the "fundamental nature of the universe". What does "fundamental nature of the universe" mean other then a quest for the absolute fundamental truth of everything?As before, this is simply a matter of me asserting knowledge on a practical basis, and you undermining that with your assertion of knowledge of "the fundamental nature of the universe". I never claimed to know the "fundamental nature of the universe", it must be YOU who is making assertions in that area by extrapolating the practical knowledge into extremes for which they were not intended. It shows that you are used to extrapolating "cause and effect" into extremes, it shows that you have a resillient knowledge of the "fundamental nature of the universe".I think this is well evidenced also by the comments in this thread and other threads. It tends to go towards talking about the fundamental nature of the universe, and further it tends to limit things going one way or another solely to human affairs, if at all. Why don't you object to those people taking a stake in the "fundamental nature of the universe" knowledge? Could that be because these people have the kind of fundamentalist logic that you like? The much predeterminist kind? And oh yes, things going one way or another soley preserved for human beings, so that humans are the only one's who have any control in the universe. Is there any more glaringly selfcentered view of the universe possible? Certainly the egotrip to have the earth as the center of the universe means nothing compared to this humongous display of selfcentered thinking, to have human beings as the only ones in the universe that can make events turn out one way or another.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No, I am taking a direct swipe at you attributing a position to someone for which there appears to be absolutey no evidence that they ascribe to it. I am more than willing to accept that there is a strong case for contingency in the origins of the holocaust, but only if we accept a priori that there is contingency in anything.The fact that a historian does not question the possibility that the universe is indeterministic when framing his discussion of history does not provide evidence that the universe is indeterministic. Because your entire argument was based around the assumption of probabilities as being 'real' rather than simply being a human tool for describing the world. This assumption coupled with your repeated assertions that things can go 'one way or another' clearly require the universe to be indeterministic to make any sense. My knowledge of the 'fundamental nature of the universe' extends as far as acknowledging that at the moment we have no idea what it is, and I think that that is going to be a fairly resilient position for some time to come. You have never shown any practical basis for your assertions that things can go one way or another. Is there any evidence that this has ever been my position? Or is this another case of you not misrepresenting my views because all you are doing is relating what your subjective 'interpretation' of my views is?To answer your initial question, the emotional motivation of my dialogue with you is that I am hacked of with your continually misrepresenting science in ill thought out and vaguely framed attempts to replace a remarkably effective branch of science with your own ideologically motivated alternative.So far we have had arguments from association, denial of the importance of variability in selection, gross misrepresentation of a paper on the suitability of viewing evolution as a stochastic, rather than a Newtonian mechanistic process and now this argument, a strange offshoot of that perhaps, that the existence of probabilities and points where probabilities resolve to unity require some extra-material or 'magical' phenomenon and that therefore what you call 'creation' is involved an therefore the religious view of the world called 'creationism' is more correct than evolution, despite the totoal lack of connection between what you call 'creation' and the philosophy of 'creationism' other than a need for the supernatural in both. As far as a motivation for my philosophical beliefs go, which as I have said tend towards, but are not firmly, hard determinism; the motivation is not substantially emotional, it is simply that I frequently observe what I consider to be instances of cause and effect, but I have never observed things going 'one way or another', I have only ever observed them going one way, with the possible exception of when studying interference patterns, which brings us right back to the thorny and fundamental question of whether what we think of as probabilistic processes, such as QM, really are or are not indeterministic.As I have also said previously, I prefer to live as if I believed in a compatibilist or indeterminist philosophy as I find the idea that I have no free-will very disturbing, I don't however intellectually discount the idea simply because I find it disturbing and not in accordance with my own subjective mental experience of the world.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-12-2005 11:29 AM

moremoremoreunsubstantiated opinionit's all you have syamsu. your bluff has been called and you still can't play the cards.you see magic because you want to see magic because you hope there is magic. that is all you have.the sad fact is that no matter which result happens you will claim it is magic no matter how meaningless it is.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ah so you are willing to accept that things can go one way or another, but you just don't think that any probability is real. If I say a probability is real, then you object. But probabilities are essential for descriptions of things turning out one way or another, so your willingness to accept has no substance.Let's just say you are unwilling to accept that for which there is no evidence, and since there is no evidence for things going one way or another, or at least not the evidence you like of absolute identical starting situations turning out differently, you don't actually accept things going one way or another. You therefore must deny that the holocaust was avoidable, but you are "willing" to talk about it as though it might have been avoidable.You previously indicated that you limit control to human beings, by ridiculing the idea of any owner to determinations except human beings.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu