Hi, AshsZ.
AshsZ writes:
Not sure I understand what you mean there. Can you elaborate on where what I said is incorrect?
Sure.
This part:
AshsZ, post #57, writes:
Uncertainty just means you dont know for sure, exactly, at all times for all of time what it will do - it does not mean that the system being observed is chaotic -
it means that the methods we use to understand and predict are incomplete.
The bolded portion is an assumption used in science.
The free will debate is all about whether or not that bolded portion is correct.
In reality, there is no way to distinguish between an unknown variable and a chaotic variable, so it can't actually be
shown that the uncertainty is due to incomplete knowledge.
Science generally
assumes that the uncertainty is due to insufficient knowledge on our part. But, we can't really present that as an argument, because experiments are not generally set up in such a way to evaluate the source or cause of the statistical noise.
-----
AshsZ, post #57, writes:
Find any experiment and do it over and over again - I assure you the same results will always occur.
As Otto said, this is actually wrong. If you repeat an experiment enough times, you are almost guaranteed to obtain at least one contradictory result.
-----
AshsZ writes:
The only thing that allows us the ability to formulate understandings of the universe is because these laws dont change. Have the laws of physics ever changed? I'm not referring to the understandings that people have come up with to explain things - our understanding of the universe has evolved over time. We are revising our theories about how the universe works as we discover new things, but all the things that make the universe tick has always been the same.
This is what Otto was trying to explain.
On what grounds can you state with such certainty that all the things that make the universe tick have always been the same?
It would be more appropriate to say that,
As far as we know, all the things that make the universe tick have always been the same.
But, as our knowledge changes, our conclusions about the nature of the universe will also undoubtedly change.
The knowledge has to proceed the conclusion. Your statements assume that the conclusion is true, and that our knowledge will eventually conform to it. But, until our knowledge conforms to it, the conclusion is only tentative.
So, we tentatively assume that the uncertainty in a data set is due to our lack of knowledge about the complexities of the situation, rather than to the intrusion of a chaotic variable.
But, how could we ever tell the difference?
Edited by Bluejay, : Paragraph formatting
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
