|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Chance moves in mysterious ways. | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It's not saying much for you that you need it explained again when you haven't dealt with the initial answer.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You mean that I should stop pointing out facts that undermine your argument ?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You mean that you don't intend to deal with the very real problems with your five points.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Agreed. But it's still an irrelevant diversion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
7. B is a measure of a past position of the particle.
For 8. are you saying B is dependent on the uncertainty principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024