Dalo

Why I am a determinist

Recommended Posts

Why I am a determinist
Descartes had his treacherous demon that tried to confuse him and lead him astray, and the only certainty Descartes then had was his cogito. Even confusion presupposes thought.

Modern physics has taken over the role of the evil demon and confusion is queen (or king?) again. With this huge difference: thought does not help anymore to create a rational world. You may think what you want, Reality does not seem to care.

Atoms and photons go through any slit they feel like going through and zombie cats rule.

There are many philosophical and metaphysical arguments in favor of determinism. I will give you only one.

Non-deterministic models presuppose that matter behaves randomly and that in turn presupposes a minimal intelligence of matter. Before reacting an element of matter would have to choose which line of action it should follow. Should it act like a wave, or like a particle? And how would it choose?
If it does not need to choose, then we are still within a deterministic model even if different courses of action are available.
A photon or electron acts as a wave in configuration A, and as a particle in configuration B. We may find it strange or even mystifying, but in the end we still have the same Principe of one cause to one effect.

Edited by Dalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dalo said:

Non-deterministic models presuppose that matter behaves randomly and that in turn presupposes a minimal intelligence of matter.

1. It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from observations.

2. It is not random. Quantum effects are deterministic, but only in a probabilistic sense. It is like tossing a coin: you know (deterministically) that you will get a head or a tail but you only know with a certain probability that you will get a head.

3. It doesn't suppose any "intelligence" in matter.

So, nice three-fold straw man argument.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from observations.

2. It is not random. Quantum effects are deterministic, but only in a probabilistic sense. It is like tossing a coin: you know (deterministically) that you will get a head or a tail but you only know with a certain probability that you will get a head.

3. It doesn't suppose any "intelligence" in matter.

So, nice three-fold straw man argument.

Probability is not a property of matter but of knowledge. You second assertion confirms this.

If you accept this then we are saying the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dalo said:

Probability is not a property of matter but of knowledge. 

In the case of quantum systems, it seems to be a fundamental property, not just an absence of knowledge. Which is why the coin analogy is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

In the case of quantum systems, it seems to be a fundamental property, not just an absence of knowledge. Which is why the coin analogy is flawed.

that is where our paths diverge.

Edited by Dalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

In the case of quantum systems, it seems to be a fundamental property, not just an absence of knowledge. Which is why the coin analogy is flawed.

It seems to be a fundamental property of how we observe quantum systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It seems to be a fundamental property of how we observe quantum systems.

How is that any different? What can you know about quantum (or any other) systems without observing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

How is that any different? What can you know about quantum (or any other) systems without observing them?

You need observation to get knowledge about physical systems. But especially in quantum systems you can't know if you have the correct logic to correctly interpret the observations. I just think it's important to state that your dealing with observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now reading Andrew Whitaker's "John Stewart Bell and Twentieth-Century Physics", and I came across a very interesting quote which has to do with observers:

"both Einstein and John [were] for an 'observer-free realm', that is, that physics should exist without observers, without the necessity for measurements" (p.55)

My first reaction is to say: why should physics be observer-free, or without the necessity of measurements?

It seems to me that Einstein and Bell are making an error which is the exact opposite of that of Bohr, but still an error.

Bohr seems to deny the independence of reality from the observer, and to counter that, Einstein and Bell want to annihilate the observer altogether to ensure the independence of reality. But while Bohr is indeed talking about reality, the other two have somehow shifted the focus to science.

That is I think a very grave philosophical mistake, an observer-free reality is quite different from an observer-free science!

I find the first very plausible while the second sounds as a metaphysical impossibility to me.

Edited by Dalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too soon to decide what is going on with physics. I don't think particles choose. There is simply more going on that we do not see. But where there's doubt there's room for theory.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

I don't think particles choose.

I don't think so either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

Too soon to decide what is going on with physics. I don't think particles choose. There is simply more going on that we do not see. But where there's doubt there's room for theory.

I Totally agree.

It's like Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice with the universe."

=>Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor.http://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11?international=true&r=US&IR=T 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things Einstein was wrong about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

Too soon to decide what I

s going on with physics. I don't think particles choose. There is simply more going on that we do not see. But where there's doubt there's room for theory.

 

With respect, there's room for theory  speculation? hypotheses?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Strange said:

What does that have to do with the probabilistic nature of quantum theory?

If they somehow find  sufficient evidence for the holographic principle  then we know the quantum-probability in our 3D reality emanates from a 2D field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Itoero said:

If they somehow find  sufficient evidence for the holographic principle  then we know the quantum-probability in our 3D reality emanates from a 2D field.

Even if that were true, how does that avoid the probabilistic nature?

(I don't think that is what the holographic principle says, anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Even if that were true, how does that avoid the probabilistic nature?

(I don't think that is what the holographic principle says, anyway.)

It doesn't avoid things, it explains things. In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon. This 2D info causes the probabilistic quantum world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It doesn't avoid things, it explains things. In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon. This 2D info causes the probabilistic quantum world.

It is still probabilistic, then.

https://gizmodo.com/you-arent-living-in-a-hologram-even-if-you-wish-you-we-1791793355

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Not necessary:

It is argued that the so-called holographic principle will obstruct attempts to produce physically realistic models for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics, unless determinism in the latter is restored.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9903084v3.pdf

http://de.arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1811v3

DETERMINISM BENEATH QUANTUM MECHANICShttps://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212095v1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Not necessary:

It is argued that the so-called holographic principle will obstruct attempts to produce physically realistic models for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics, unless determinism in the latter is restored.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9903084v3.pdf

http://de.arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1811v3

DETERMINISM BENEATH QUANTUM MECHANICShttps://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212095v1.pdf

Interesting. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:48 PM, studiot said:

 

With respect, there's room for theory  speculation? hypotheses?

 

:)

hypothesis
hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/  
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
  1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
     
    theory
    ˈθɪəri/  
    noun
    noun: theory; plural noun: theories
    1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
       
      Seems very similar. I of course did not provide any evidence or principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fudgetusk said:
hypothesis
hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/  
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
  1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
     
    theory
    ˈθɪəri/  
    noun
    noun: theory; plural noun: theories
    1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
       
      Seems very similar. I of course did not provide any evidence or principles.

 

Both have specific status amd meanings in Science, which are different from general usage.

I hypothesis is a (hopefully) well thought out 'guess' or proposal. That is is is made for good scientific reasons.
 

Once made the hypothesis is tested, preferably in many ways.

If the predictions of the hypothesis conform to observation then it may be elevated to the status of Theory.

If not it is rejected.

 

Usually a Theory actually contains more than one hypothesis along with some development of their interactions and implications.

 

Newcomers here sometimes fail to make this distinction and are marked down as a result.

 

Does this help?

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:48 PM, studiot said:

 

Both have specific status amd meanings in Science, which are different from general usage.

I hypothesis is a (hopefully) well thought out 'guess' or proposal. That is is is made for good scientific reasons.
 

Once made the hypothesis is tested, preferably in many ways.

If the predictions of the hypothesis conform to observation then it may be elevated to the status of Theory.

If not it is rejected.

 

Usually a Theory actually contains more than one hypothesis along with some development of their interactions and implications.

 

Newcomers here sometimes fail to make this distinction and are marked down as a result.

 

Does this help?

 

>>a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES. We have that with QM. Hence theory is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now