The phenomenon and the explanation

[Mark Quayle]

That's pretty much the same idea I was talking about, but applied to the path of a quantum object. When you sum all possible paths, the most unlikely paths cancel out and you end up with the observed path. You don't really need to sum all possible paths, because the very unlikely ones cancel out almost completely and don't make a significant contribution to the path. IIRC Feynman describes it quite clearly in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

The issue with these methods is the usual quantum problem - how they can be interpreted in comprehensible natural language & familiar concepts.

Again I have to say, "not that I understand what he is talking about", but a Quora magazine author talks, (answering someone's question), about determinism as opposing unpredictability. That doesn't add up to me. I can understand both, easily enough. Unpredictability, if I understand what he means, is what I would mean by it, that we don't know, that there are some things we can't calculate or predict. That by no means proves that anything is uncaused. Does he mean by determinism, then, that WE must somehow be involved? (That sounds like the famous tree falling in the uninhabited forest).

He uses the word 'random' the same way, saying that particles and information being lost into black holes meant that particles coming out were random. That doesn't add up, to me.

But at least, he ends his answer well enough:
"Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

I'm sorry but my computer froze before I could get the link to that on here. I had to shut it down and restart. I don't even know how I found it.

Re Feynman's
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard P. Feynman
I do like his saying that his students don't understand it because he doesn't understand it. I've heard that before, in different ways, such as, "If someone says they understand it, they don't understand it." I should get the book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, as ignorant of the subject as I am, I probably shouldn't comment too much, but at this point, so many different things seem to be said, that when I hear something was confirmed by something else so hard to understand, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain amount of confirmation bias going on. But, yeah, that happens with my own thinking, too.

The weird things in QM that are confirmed are not cases of confirmation bias since the experiments are easily repeatable and the results repeat too. It often seems to contradictory to the world that we live in that many believe it in spite of their own wishes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The weird things in QM that are confirmed are not cases of confirmation bias since the experiments are easily repeatable and the results repeat too. It often seems to contradictory to the world that we live in that many believe it in spite of their own wishes.

What I'm referring to isn't the experiment's data, but some of the conclusions made by correlations of data. When I hear that a particle went back in time, or that human observation (not the means by which the observation was made) is what actually made the difference, or of particles "popping in and out of existence", or of true randomness and chance being causative.... well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Again I have to say, "not that I understand what he is talking about", but a Quora magazine author talks, (answering someone's question), about determinism as opposing unpredictability. That doesn't add up to me. I can understand both, easily enough. Unpredictability, if I understand what he means, is what I would mean by it, that we don't know, that there are some things we can't calculate or predict. That by no means proves that anything is uncaused. Does he mean by determinism, then, that WE must somehow be involved? (That sounds like the famous tree falling in the uninhabited forest).

I can't quite make out the problem here. Determinism isn't opposed to unpredictability, it's opposed to indeterminism (acausality). Plenty of deterministic things are unpredictable, even in mathematics (chaos theory, the halting problem, etc). 'Random' is often used loosely to mean unpredictable; whether pure or 'true' randomness exists is debatable.

He uses the word 'random' the same way, saying that particles and information being lost into black holes meant that particles coming out were random. That doesn't add up, to me.

The radiation from a black hole (Hawking radiation) is thermal, black body radiation, but is interesting in that its characteristics only depend on the gross properties of the black hole, so it carries no information about the black hole content. It is random in the sense that the properties of individual photons are unpredictable, but overall they're distributed over a characteristic spectrum.

But at least, he ends his answer well enough:
"Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

It sounds like he thinks some of the things he was talking about are 'truly' random, i.e. acausal. I suspect he's using 'God' in the same way Hawking did, as a metaphor; a popular anthromorphic personification of the unexplained or unknown.

Re Feynman's
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard P. Feynman
I do like his saying that his students don't understand it because he doesn't understand it. I've heard that before, in different ways, such as, "If someone says they understand it, they don't understand it." I should get the book.

The problem is that although we have a formal mathematical description of how the quantum world behaves that unerringly tells us what we will observe, we have no matching conceptual explanatory framework to understand what's going on; instead, we have a variety of different incomplete ideas, most of which are currently untestable. This is the reason for the popular QM aphorism, "Shut up and calculate!"

 

[SelfSim]

Does he mean by determinism, then, that WE must somehow be involved? (That sounds like the famous tree falling in the uninhabited forest).

I hope so. (I just made a post in the other thread about consciousness, determinism and information in the Science forum here, if interested).

Oh "if a tree falls in the woods, does it make sound?": .. Of course it does, because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falling in a woods, does what we mean by making sound. The mind dependence of all of that could not possibly be more obvious, it's a hypothetical tree for crying out loud!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't quite make out the problem here. Determinism isn't opposed to unpredictability, it's opposed to indeterminism (acausality). Plenty of deterministic things are unpredictable, even in mathematics (chaos theory, the halting problem, etc). 'Random' is often used loosely to mean unpredictable; whether pure or 'true' randomness exists is debatable.

Not knowing the name of the writer, or having a link to reference, I can't quote precisely, but the way he wrote, it sounded like he thought they were mutually exclusive. I agree they are not, unless what he meant by both was 'by us currently'.

The radiation from a black hole (Hawking radiation) is thermal, black body radiation, but is interesting in that its characteristics only depend on the gross properties of the black hole, so it carries no information about the black hole content. It is random in the sense that the properties of individual photons are unpredictable, but overall they're distributed over a characteristic spectrum.

Is the 'characteristic spectrum' the same for all black holes, then, since the radiation doesn't depend on or give information on the identity of the contents?

It sounds like he thinks some of the things he was talking about are 'truly' random, i.e. acausal. I suspect he's using 'God' in the same way Hawking did, as a metaphor; a popular anthromorphic personification of the unexplained or unknown.

Yes, I took it as a metaphor, and with Hawking vs Einstein (the dice) too. It did sound to me like he (and others I've read) believe, with hardly a thought, that there are truly uncaused things, and that bothers me a lot that anyone acting as though they are an authority on any scientific subject would actually have that easy a notion of chance.

The problem is that although we have a formal mathematical description of how the quantum world behaves that unerringly tells us what we will observe, we have no matching conceptual explanatory framework to understand what's going on; instead, we have a variety of different incomplete ideas, most of which are currently untestable. This is the reason for the popular QM aphorism, "Shut up and calculate!"

I've read this last paragraph of yours several times, and the thought keeps coming to me, (let's see if I can even express it well), I have long wondered what is the most basic thing (particle, force, component) in physics, such as the Higgs Bosun was said to be by some, that in the same way QM relates to Classical Physics, the contents or makeup of the particles that QM describes may have to be described by itself/themselves carrying their own mathematical descriptions and incongruous (as far as QM is concerned) fashion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not knowing the name of the writer, or having a link to reference, I can't quote precisely, but the way he wrote, it sounded like he thought they were mutually exclusive. I agree they are not, unless what he meant by both was 'by us currently'.

Not sure what you're referring to with 'they were mutually exclusive' - randomness & unpredictability, randomness & determinism, something else?

Is the 'characteristic spectrum' the same for all black holes, then, since the radiation doesn't depend on or give information on the identity of the contents?

It's a thermal spectrum, black body radiation. AIUI, the peak frequency depends on the size of the black hole.

Yes, I took it as a metaphor, and with Hawking vs Einstein (the dice) too. It did sound to me like he (and others I've read) believe, with hardly a thought, that there are truly uncaused things, and that bothers me a lot that anyone acting as though they are an authority on any scientific subject would actually have that easy a notion of chance.

The currently most popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, have the various measurement outcomes described by the wavefunction instantaneously collapsing to a single observed outcome via a stochastic (truly random but probabilistic) process.

It's thought to be truly random because experiments (Bell Inequality tests) show that there are no properties ('hidden variables') of a quantum system (e.g. particle) that can cause or mediate this collapse - or at least, if there were, some more fundamental concept of physics (local realism) would be violated, which would be problematic for physics generally...

There are QM interpretations where wavefunction collapse is not part of the scheme, so that randomness is only apparent, e.g. an artefact of a particular observer's viewpoint.

I've read this last paragraph of yours several times, and the thought keeps coming to me, (let's see if I can even express it well), I have long wondered what is the most basic thing (particle, force, component) in physics, such as the Higgs Bosun was said to be by some, that in the same way QM relates to Classical Physics, the contents or makeup of the particles that QM describes may have to be described by itself/themselves carrying their own mathematical descriptions and incongruous (as far as QM is concerned) fashion.

Particle physics describes a number of fundamental particles: quarks, (which can combine to make protons and neutrons); leptons (particles like the electron, with their neutrino partners); gauge or vector bosons (like the photon), and scalar bosons (the Higgs).

They are all described by a more fundamental theory, Quantum Field Theory (QFT), as excitations in quantum fields that pervade space. IOW, they are all fundamentally waves. Each fundamental particle has its own quantum field, e.g. the Higgs field, the electromagnetic field, etc., each of which has its own characteristics. Very roughly, we see and describe excitations of these fields as particles because their interactions are localised.

It gets a bit hairy and seemingly divorced from our everyday experiential reality, but it's a model or description that works and while it's acknowledged to be incomplete, every experiment we've done is consistent with it being 'correct' (fully descriptive, if not explanatory) within its domain.

If you're cultivating an interest in how and why such ideas were arrived at, there's a very good series of videos describing how and why physics went from the classical Newtonian model taught in schools to the seemingly strange and esoteric shores of QFT. See The Biggest Ideas in the Universe #14 - #23.

 

[Phred]

Yet if we show such easily explained "contradictions" in your thinking, it would be simple enough for you to explain what you meant.

To me, it seems you just want to see the contradictions, not figure out why they look like contradictions to you.

The Bible is understandable even to the simple. It says so. I don't need a third party to explain it to me. There are contradictions and mistakes. It's a badly written, error-filled advertising piece that 's trying to say, "my god is meaner than your god."

You don't want to see it for what it really is.

 

[Phred]

Say a third of the world saw a big red ball in the sky. A third believed that it was there on account of those who see it. The remaining third was divided. 90 percent said it might be there but can't believe it's there because they can't see it. The remaining 10 percent said it's not there because we can't see it. What position seems least reasonable?

But you're not just talking about a simple red ball in the sky. You have a red ball that hears all our thoughts, created the world, did so 6,000 years ago when we can show the earth is 4.54 BILLION years old and many, many other claims to go along with that red ball appearing in the sky. The sheer extraordinary nature of the claims require extraordinary evidence.

You not only don't have extraordinary evidence you have a pure blue sky. It's empty. You have no evidence at all.

So I don't care how many people say they believe you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Bible is understandable even to the simple. It says so. I don't need a third party to explain it to me. There are contradictions and mistakes. It's a badly written, error-filled advertising piece that 's trying to say, "my god is meaner than your god."

You don't want to see it for what it really is.

What does third party have to do with it? Btw, most of these so-called contradictions can be answered by a child.

You are part right, in that I don't want to see it for how you say it is. And obviously, you don't want to see it for how I say it is.

 

[Phred]

What does third party have to do with it? Btw, most of these so-called contradictions can be answered by a child.

You are part right, in that I don't want to see it for how you say it is. And obviously, you don't want to see it for how I say it is.

YOU are the third party. It's amazing how you are an advocate for the Bible until you're forced to read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does third party have to do with it? Btw, most of these so-called contradictions can be answered by a child.

You are part right, in that I don't want to see it for how you say it is. And obviously, you don't want to see it for how I say it is.

I have seen very few contradictions ever answered for. I have seen weak excuses made. Excuses are not answers.

 

[Eloy Craft]

created the world, did so 6,000 years ago when we can show the earth is 4.54 BILLION year

False. Looking for extraordinary claims. Try the resurrection. Your claim is not in there.

You not only don't have extraordinary evidence

I think the world before Christ and the social changes of the culture founded on His revelation are extraordinary evidence.

 

[Eloy Craft]

But you're not just talking about a simple red ball in the sky

Not too different. Except one third of the world See's the red ball materially
You didn't answer the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. Looking for extraordinary claims. Try the resurrection. Your claim is not in there.

I think the world before Christ and the social changes of the culture founded on His revelation are extraordinary evidence.

I am sorry, but how is that evidence? Confirmation bias, yes. Evidence? No.

 

[Mark Quayle]

YOU are the third party. It's amazing how you are an advocate for the Bible until you're forced to read it.

Care to back that up? Or maybe you are saying 'you' in the generic sense? I read the Bible more than you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not too different. Except one third of the world See's the red ball materially
You didn't answer the question.

Your analogy appears to fall apart here. What are you trying to claim?

 

[dlamberth]

I think the world before Christ and the social changes of the culture founded on His revelation are extraordinary evidence.

Am awful lot of Human Beings have been martyred at the hands of those in the world of Christ.

I've told this story before, but I don't think it can be shared enough. It's one of those things that has always stuck with me in a very profound way. One of my favorite Medieval Women Christian Mystics, Marguerite Porete wrote that there are two churches. The first she called the High Holy Church. That church, she wrote, "preaches" Love. The other church she called the Little Holy Church. That church "preaches" rules and laws and order. With all of my heart, I completely believe that if the Church had "preached" Love these pass 2000 years, that today the world would actually be a much better place. Than and only than could I find a place to agree with your statement that I'm replying to. I believe that the possibilities are there in a pretty major way, but that the church hasn't lived to it's potential of what could and even should be.

Getting back to Marguerite Porete, she was burned at the stake by the Little Holy Church. Which is the same church that martyred so many others through out the world.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I am sorry, but how is that evidence? Confirmation bias, yes. Evidence? No.

I'm careful about bias. Significant beneficial social change that happen over centuries because of one man is evidence. I think that qualifies.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Am awful lot of Human Beings have been martyred at the hands of those in the world of Christ.

I've told this story before, but I don't think it can be shared enough. It's one of those things that has always stuck with me in a very profound way. One of my favorite Medieval Women Christian Mystics, Marguerite Porete wrote that there are two churches. The first she called the High Holy Church. That church, she wrote, "preaches" Love. The other church she called the Little Holy Church. That church "preaches" rules and laws and order. With all of my heart, I completely believe that if the Church had "preached" Love these pass 2000 years, that today the world would actually be a much better place. Than and only than could I find a place to agree with your statement that I'm replying to. I believe that the possibilities are there in a pretty major way, but that the church hasn't lived to it's potential of what could and even should be.

Getting back to Marguerite Porete, she was burned at the stake by the Little Holy Church. Which is the same church that martyred so many others through out the world.

The Church has failed to not just preach love but to do what it requires. It's a challenge to be Catholic these days.

I find Truth there. That's a keeper through thick and thin to me.