Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance moves in mysterious ways.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 99 (442732)
12-22-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 1:12 PM


It's not saying much for you that you need it explained again when you haven't dealt with the initial answer.
quote:
1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
2. B was caused. Call the cause A.
3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.
4. Therefore A is an insufficient cause of B.
5. So A caused B but was not sufficient to cause B.
The example in point 1 is bad. We are not interested in the immediate cause of the dot on the film. What we are interested in is how the photon came to hit that spot rather than somewhere else.
Point 2 is also bad, it should say "partially caused". The causal factors available are insufficient to dictate the location at which the photon arrives. Insisting on a single cause is also questionable.
Point 3 is true as explained above. Assuming that the photon's location is genuinely random (your assumption) then the relevant causal factors are not sufficient to dictate the location at which the photon arrives.
Point 4 is your choice of terminology. I've not seen anyone else use it.
Point 5 is only a contradiction if you assume that "cause" applies only to a sufficient cause. If you do make that assumption then point 2 is incorrect. With the correct understanding that the causal factors only partially dictate the outcome point 5 becomes "A is a partial cause of B, but not sufficient" which is not contradictory at all. Assuming that you intended 5 to be a genuine contradiction then you begged the question at point 2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 1:12 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 2:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 47 of 99 (442737)
12-22-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
12-22-2007 1:47 PM


The example in point 1 is bad. We are not interested in the immediate cause of the dot on the film. What we are interested in is how the photon came to hit that spot rather than somewhere else.
1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
It happens or it doesn't happen, whether or not you think the example is "bad" or "uninteresting".
Are you disputing that an experiment can be conducted where effect B happens?
Point 2 is also bad, it should say "partially caused". The causal factors available are insufficient to dictate the location at which the photon arrives. Insisting on a single cause is also questionable.
2. B was caused. Call the cause A.
So you are saying the effect, B was not caused.
You are saying a dot on a film was only partially caused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 1:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 2:34 PM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 99 (442738)
12-22-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 2:21 PM


quote:
1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
It happens or it doesn't happen, whether or not you think the example is "bad" or "uninteresting".
Are you disputing that an experiment can be conducted where effect B happens?
I didn't say that the effect was bad.. I said that the example was bad because it wasn't the effect we were discussing and it has an immediate cause that IS sufficient (as I alreafy explained).
quote:
2. B was caused. Call the cause A.
So you are saying the effect, B was not caused.
You are saying a dot on a film was only partially caused.
How else would you describe a situation where the causal factors do NOT fully account for the outcome ? It seems that you are determined to beg the question.
And as I stated above, I say that the arrival of the photon at that point of the film IS a sufficient cause for the dot to appear. That's the reaaon WHY it is a bad example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 2:21 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 2:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 49 of 99 (442740)
12-22-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
12-22-2007 2:34 PM


I didn't say that the effect was bad.. I said that the example was bad because it wasn't the effect we were discussing and it has an immediate cause that IS sufficient (as I alreafy explained).
Please concentrate on the five points and stop messing up by second guessing or confusing them with anything else. Start again.
Is point 3 the first point you disagree with?
3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 3:02 PM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 50 of 99 (442744)
12-22-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 2:43 PM


quote:
Please concentrate on the five points and stop messing up by second guessing or confusing them with anything else. Start again.
You mean that I should stop pointing out facts that undermine your argument ?
quote:
Is point 3 the first point you disagree with?
As I've already stated, if point 2 means that 'A' is a sufficient cause of 'B' it begs the question. If it allows for 'A' to only partially cause B - leaving some aspects undetermined then your argument is invalid.
quote:
3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.
I only disagree with it in the case of the example you have NOW chosen. In the original case - as I have explained it is valid. Although it should be better phrased "sinequanon states that there is no sufficient cause of B" since you were the one who insisted that there was a random factor.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 2:43 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 3:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 51 of 99 (442745)
12-22-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
12-22-2007 3:02 PM


I only disagree with it in the case of the example you have NOW chosen. In the original case - as I have explained it is valid. Although it should be better phrased "sinequanon states that there is no sufficient cause of B" since you were the one who insisted that there was a random factor.
So now that you have got your aberration, which appears nowhere in the five points, out of your head we may continue.
1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
2. B was caused. Call the cause A.
We are agreed up to here. So, with your aberration out of the way...
UPDATE
3. PaulK says A is sufficient cause of B.
4. B is not a random effect of A.
Agreed so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 3:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 3:21 PM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 99 (442747)
12-22-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 3:15 PM


quote:
So now that you have got your aberration, which appears nowhere in the five points, out of your head we may continue.
You mean that you don't intend to deal with the very real problems with your five points.
quote:
1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
2. B was caused. Call the cause A.
We are agreed up to here. So, with your aberration out of the way...
UPDATE
3. PaulK says A is sufficient cause of B.
4. B is not a random effect of A.
Agreed so far?
OK so we've agreed that you've changed to the subject to an irrelevant example which doesn't address the issues under discussion.
Why don't we actually go back to discussing something relevant - something which DOES involve a chance element ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 3:15 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 3:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 53 of 99 (442750)
12-22-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
12-22-2007 3:21 PM


1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
2. B was caused. Call the cause A.
3. PaulK says A is sufficient cause of B.
4. B is not a random effect of A.
5. B is caused deterministically by the particle.
6. B is a repeatable measure of some property of the particle.
Agreed so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 3:49 PM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 99 (442754)
12-22-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 3:32 PM


Agreed. But it's still an irrelevant diversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 3:32 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 4:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 55 of 99 (442780)
12-22-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
12-22-2007 3:49 PM


I am glad you agree.
7. The property for which B is a measure is the position of the particle.
8. The accuracy of B is nothing to do with the uncertainty principle of the particle, but depends on the accuracy of our instruments.
Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 4:51 PM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 99 (442784)
12-22-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 4:36 PM


quote:
7. The property for which B is a measure is the position of the particle.
8. The accuracy of B is nothing to do with the uncertainty principle of the particle, but depends on the accuracy of our instruments.
7 By the tiem we see it, it is a measure of a PAST position of the particle.
8 I disagree. It may be that the inaccuracy of our instruments overwhelms the inherent limits imposed by the Uncertainty Principle. However by the Uncertainty Principle absolute precision in position is only attainable by maximum uncertainty in momentum, which I don't believe applies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 4:36 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 5:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 57 of 99 (442788)
12-22-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
12-22-2007 4:51 PM


7. B is a measure of a past position of the particle.
For 8. are you saying B is dependent on the uncertainty principle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 4:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 5:18 PM sinequanon has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 58 of 99 (442790)
12-22-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by sinequanon
12-20-2007 4:37 PM


sinequanon writes:
This thread is to examine why science accepts the explanation "Randomness done it".
Ah ok. If you are referring to evolution obviously, selection is a mechanism that filters random events and this is trivial to demonstrate.
sinequanon writes:
Take the very simple quantum physics example of bound states of a particle in a square potential well. Quantum theory predicts a probability distribution for the particle's position in the well, and this is supported by experiment.
I perform an experiment and get a value for the particle's position.
I repeat the experiment and get a different value, any value in the range of the well.
There is no way of determining what the next value will be.
Several repeats may reveal a pattern, but there is no model for the order in which the pattern of values arises. So we have an unexplained phenomenon with consequence.
What caused the values to be different? God or randomness?
In the aggregate we can characterize and make predictions, etc.
For example, if we have a lump of a known radioactive material we can make predictions on the average number of decaying particles per unit time. However as far as I know at the individual atomic level we cannot make predictions when a specific particle will decay. I think you can safely say "only God know that".
sinequanon writes:
Is "randomness" a backdoor by which God can work his magic unscrutinized?
This is actual a good and interesting point.
I had a similar thought when first I learned of the unpredictability at the quantum level. Back then, I was more theistically inclined (at least with respect to organized religions).
I used this arguement to explain why perhaps God could work miracles in nonlinear dynamic systems that could be influenced at the quantum level via initial conditions that exist within the uncertainty boundaries. Perhaps, i thought, this is why God could heal some diseases but never restores body part or limb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 12-20-2007 4:37 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 99 (442794)
12-22-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 5:00 PM


I am saying that the Uncertainty Principle represents a limit on the precision of measurement that is possible (for location and momentum, simultaneously). That's what it IS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 5:00 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 5:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 60 of 99 (442799)
12-22-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
12-22-2007 5:18 PM


I take it we are agreed up to and including point 7.
In point 8. B is the measurement of the position of the particle (not some combination of measurements/position/momentum or any other diversion).
Could you please attempt 8. again.
For 8. are you saying B is dependent on the uncertainty principle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 5:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 5:31 PM sinequanon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024