The definition and value of science

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, the intended meaning (if I was saying something like that) is how nature appears to be organized so that it works beautifully and perfectly yet also appears unlikely to be all predetermined (Bell Test experiments in modern physics have made it seem likely that nature has randomness instead of determinism; that the classical 'clockwork universe' idea is only an approximation that isn't really accurate). In that case, you have both randomness in nature, and order, naturally....
How? In short, because vast numbers of particles behaving randomly on the individual level but by fixed laws of probability will then create macro systems (large collections of particles) that have order.

The reason particles with movements/actions that happen (seemingly by random chance) but also by fixed probabilities lead to ordered systems is because of the physics (relationships) of the particles.

In this way, the chaos of the individual particles still creates a reliable macro phenomena. Naturally. Order arises from chaos naturally. Like a hand and glove.

It's because the laws the particles are following are fixed/ordered, the probabilities reliably constant. So, the individual particle cannot be predicted, nor the weather a year out to precision (down to how many tenths of a inch of rain in Austin on May 24, 2024, etc.), yet nevertheless, we can predict often very well whether it will rain hours later today...

Let me see how you react to this, which I have posited (for effect) before, but never heard anything valid to render it "bogus":

Throughout all empirical experience, so far, only one thing has ever been shown possible —which is, 'whatever happens'. If that's all we have ever seen happen, then how can we say that there is a range of possible things that can happen in the future? Therefore, there is only one possibility for what will happen.

We have built a whole mathematical system on probability, but we fail to admit that it is only OUR speculation, not actual multiple possibilities. WE DON'T KNOW.

 

[Halbhh]

Let me see how you react to this, which I have posited (for effect) before, but never heard anything valid to render it "bogus":

Throughout all empirical experience, so far, only one thing has ever been shown possible —which is, 'whatever happens'. If that's all we have ever seen happen, then how can we say that there is a range of possible things that can happen in the future? Therefore, there is only one possibility for what will happen.

We have built a whole mathematical system on probability, but we fail to admit that it is only OUR speculation, not actual multiple possibilities. WE DON'T KNOW.

It's basic among most sciences to be aware there is much we don't yet understand. A lot of unknowns.

(in many fields if someone claims it's all figured out completely, that only shows they aren't aware of the open questions in that field; a lack of awareness)

While I wasn't sure precisely what you were asking in the 2nd paragraph wording, did I address it here though? If not, you could reword for more clarity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Let me see how you react to this, which I have posited (for effect) before, but never heard anything valid to render it "bogus":

Throughout all empirical experience, so far, only one thing has ever been shown possible —which is, 'whatever happens'. If that's all we have ever seen happen, then how can we say that there is a range of possible things that can happen in the future? Therefore, there is only one possibility for what will happen.

We have built a whole mathematical system on probability, but we fail to admit that it is only OUR speculation, not actual multiple possibilities. WE DON'T KNOW.

It's basic among most sciences to be aware there is much we don't yet understand. A lot of unknowns.

(in many fields if someone claims it's all figured out completely, that only shows they aren't aware of the open questions in that field; a lack of awareness)

While I wasn't sure precisely what you were asking in the 2nd paragraph wording, did I address it here though? If not, you could reword for more clarity.

There's way too much that I don't know and don't understand about Quantum Physics to be able to argue intelligently to the specifics. But the general defenses and descriptions I hear concerning the behavior of light and other forces, matter, particles etc on the micro scale, used to give substance to the principle(s) they seem to think Quantum Physics is based on, too often just don't add up, to me, when they go against simple logic —most usually the claims that anything can happen by mere chance. Many of the arguments that I think I DO understand in defense of causation by chance seem to me simply circular.

If they use the mathematics of probability, I don't mind the guesswork as long as it is understood that it is our guesswork. But the descriptions I hear attribute causal ability to chance, which, I'm sorry, but, I don't buy it. I say everything is caused, except whatever was the first cause, (and have yet to hear a valid reason why not), so they come back with the 'double-slit experiment' which admittedly runs contrary to intuition, but demonstrates nothing except wave-particle duality of light, electrons, etc, and the apparent causation-via-observation. The objection they throw at me there has no bearing on the question of whether chance can cause anything.

The question goes all the way back to the big bang, for me. Classical physics will say that whatever is happening now is a result of initial particulars in the big bang. They want to argue that it is not so, but that, (as if chaos theory demonstrates anything here), Quantum Physics shows that out of a perfectly homogenous thing, things (plural) can differentiate and speciate. Sorry, but I don't see how they can know that.

Particles do not pop in and out of existence at random, nor by chance. We can SAY that they do, but that only means that we don't know the causes. There are principles science has not yet understood, and, I believe, has not even discovered. What we do understand, at best, by quantum physics, or by any other science or truly logical mental device, does not render a conclusion of Causation by Chance, nor even the Existence of Chance.

Plus, to top it off, the very definition of Chance or Random relegates it to inability to determine anything. It is simply logically self-contradictory to say it can cause anything.

 

[Halbhh]

Mark Quayle said:
Let me see how you react to this, which I have posited (for effect) before, but never heard anything valid to render it "bogus":

Throughout all empirical experience, so far, only one thing has ever been shown possible —which is, 'whatever happens'. If that's all we have ever seen happen, then how can we say that there is a range of possible things that can happen in the future? Therefore, there is only one possibility for what will happen.

We have built a whole mathematical system on probability, but we fail to admit that it is only OUR speculation, not actual multiple possibilities. WE DON'T KNOW.



There's way too much that I don't know and don't understand about Quantum Physics to be able to argue intelligently to the specifics. But the general defenses and descriptions I hear concerning the behavior of light and other forces, matter, particles etc on the micro scale, used to give substance to the principle(s) they seem to think Quantum Physics is based on, too often just don't add up, to me, when they go against simple logic —most usually the claims that anything can happen by mere chance. Many of the arguments that I think I DO understand in defense of causation by chance seem to me simply circular.

If they use the mathematics of probability, I don't mind the guesswork as long as it is understood that it is our guesswork. But the descriptions I hear attribute causal ability to chance, which, I'm sorry, but, I don't buy it. I say everything is caused, except whatever was the first cause, (and have yet to hear a valid reason why not), so they come back with the 'double-slit experiment' which admittedly runs contrary to intuition, but demonstrates nothing except wave-particle duality of light, electrons, etc, and the apparent causation-via-observation. The objection they throw at me there has no bearing on the question of whether chance can cause anything.

The question goes all the way back to the big bang, for me. Classical physics will say that whatever is happening now is a result of initial particulars in the big bang. They want to argue that it is not so, but that, (as if chaos theory demonstrates anything here), Quantum Physics shows that out of a perfectly homogenous thing, things (plural) can differentiate and speciate. Sorry, but I don't see how they can know that.

Particles do not pop in and out of existence at random, nor by chance. We can SAY that they do, but that only means that we don't know the causes. There are principles science has not yet understood, and, I believe, has not even discovered. What we do understand, at best, by quantum physics, or by any other science or truly logical mental device, does not render a conclusion of Causation by Chance, nor even the Existence of Chance.

Plus, to top it off, the very definition of Chance or Random relegates it to inability to determine anything. It is simply logically self-contradictory to say it can cause anything.

Hi. Having read where you said (more than once) "causation by chance" it appears you are using an idea of 'chance' that might be something like: totally random without any rhyme or reason to it.

In physics we have found that Nature is the opposite of that kind of 'totally random chance without order'. Instead, Nature operates in a highly predictable manner we have found, by fixed laws, which we even think we have partially discovered. (we think we have found some of the fixed laws of nature, or forms of some of the laws -- some, not all. Physicists feel very sure there are more laws we have not yet found, to answer open questions we cannot yet answer, like about 'dark matter' and many other unknowns).

I think it might help to read more fully what I posted to you above, and ask questions about what I actually wrote above, instead of this 'chance' you seem to be referring to which is very unlike what I was writing to you about.

A simple illustration might be useful to think on as you read what I wrote to you more fully: when you roll a pair of 6 sided dice they will over many rolls have a higher probability of showing a 7 result than any other. That 7 comes up the most isn't 'totally random chance without any order in it' but a fixed result of probability due to precise mathematical law, really. Isn't it. Nature also shows it follows precise law, in a fixed consistent way. That's a basic thing I was trying to speak about above, to help show how the seeming chance in Nature and also the evident order in Nature are like hand and glove.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hi. Having read where you said (more than once) "causation by chance" it appears you are using an idea of 'chance' that might be something like: totally random without any rhyme or reason to it.

In physics we have found that Nature is the opposite of that kind of 'totally random chance without order'. Instead, Nature operates in a highly predictable manner we have found, by fixed laws, which we even think we have partially discovered. (we think we have found some of the fixed laws of nature, or forms of some of the laws -- some, not all. Physicists feel very sure there are more laws we have not yet found, to answer open questions we cannot yet answer, like about 'dark matter' and many other unknowns).

I think it might help to read more fully what I posted to you above, and ask questions about what I actually wrote above, instead of this 'chance' you seem to be referring to which is very unlike what I was writing to you about.

A simple illustration might be useful to think on as you read what I wrote to you more fully: when you roll a pair of 6 sided dice they will over many rolls have a higher probability of showing a 7 result than any other. That 7 comes up the most isn't 'totally random chance without any order in it' but a fixed result of probability due to precise mathematical law, really. Isn't it. Nature also shows it follows precise law, in a fixed consistent way. That's a basic thing I was trying to speak about above, to help show how the seeming chance in Nature and also the evident order in Nature are like hand and glove.

Well, good, then. Glad we've got 'chance' and 'random' out of the way. They are only sort for, "we don't know".

Hopefully, then, we can see that, while useful in guiding our guesses, the laws of probability are still productive of speculation. We can know that the one is more likely than the other —that is, right up until the dice stop rolling— but then we see that what actually WAS probable is only what the outcome actually turned out to be. We have no way of knowing that anything else "could have happened."

 

[Halbhh]

"we don't know".

This is a good summary actually of where we are at on some key questions that arise in Quantum Mechanics.


Here's a fun article that is closely related, and may help illustrate the efforts that are ongoing to untangle the mysteries there:

What Is a Particle?

It has been thought of as many things: a pointlike object, an excitation of a field, a speck of pure math that has cut into reality. But never has physicists’ conception of a particle changed more…

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is a good summary actually of where we are at on some key questions that arise in Quantum Mechanics.


Here's a fun article that is closely related, and may help illustrate the efforts that are ongoing to untangle the mysteries there:

What Is a Particle?

It has been thought of as many things: a pointlike object, an excitation of a field, a speck of pure math that has cut into reality. But never has physicists’ conception of a particle changed more…

www.quantamagazine.org

Thanks. Yes it is interesting, but for me, still hard to follow. Not sure if it is just because there is so much abstract on top of abstract or what. This is "like" or "seems to be represented by" etc etc. then they do math on the representations, and I'm lost, lol.

 

[Halbhh]

Thanks. Yes it is interesting, but for me, still hard to follow. Not sure if it is just because there is so much abstract on top of abstract or what. This is "like" or "seems to be represented by" etc etc. then they do math on the representations, and I'm lost, lol.

Even for those that know these theories in more detail, it's still mysterious stuff many will say (considering also that none yet have any decisive evidence that would support that view above other views in a way that can eliminate many of the competing ideas).