Jump to content
empleat

validity of expression: probability is antithesis of randomness

Recommended Posts

I read this article about free will and some neurologist was flaming there sabine hossenfelder for her ignorance and claims about other fields which outside her profession.

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/05/can-physics-prove-there-is-no-free-will/

And than he himself talk nonsense, which is easy to prove wrong in my opinion. I think expression that probability is antithesis of randomness is flat out wrong. Because probability is chance that something happens against all other possibilities, like if you roll 1 on dice, there is chance 1/6 that it happens. But it doesn't say anything about why it happened, it could be predetermined by angle you throw it and gravitation etc. Or it could be cause randomly, by some variables. Events in quantum mechanics aren't without cause, but you can't tell exactly where particle will end up. Consider simple universe there could be only 2 scenarios, meteor hits earth and meteor doesn't hits earth. It would have been choosen randomly between these 2 and you can still predict probability something happen on 50%. 

It is funny how these people flame each other for something they said and they instantly blame it on that it is outside their profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what exactly do you want to discuss?

Here is the offending extract

Quote

Hossenfelder seems to have learned about quantum mechanics between writing these two paragraphs. She contradicts herself. Yet she’s wrong about quantum mechanics (QM). QM is not random. It is probabilistic, which is the antithesis of randomness. The probabilities can be calculated with remarkable precision.

She’s right that determinism is false. That local determinism doesn’t exist has been established clearly by experiments based on Bell’s Inequality.

 

Random and probabilistic are different concepts, they are not opposites.

You are right in observing that they deal with different parts of a chain of events.

Random deals with the nature of the result itself. It is the more slippery and elusive concept.

Probabilistic deals with the method of getting to the result.

Both suffer from misuse.

 

Edit please note I inadvertantly switched my definitions of Random and Probabilistic.
They are now the right way round.

 

Sorry.

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit please note I inadvertantly switched my definitions of Random and Probabilistic in my last post.
They are now the right way round.

 

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The critique is bogus; at one point the author objects to a statement about classical physics by citing QM.  

(Which isn't surprising. I recognize the name from his ID arguments, and he appears to be applying his limited understanding to a different field)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye i actually read a lot of articles when people do that,  i google free will news often and 90% is crap, there won't be major progress in such a short time. And even in other fields people actually do that. It was proven that it is better to know multiple fields like elon musk to, he takes principle from other field and apply it in to something else. But not everyone have 1000 wpm reading speed and iq 200 to have time to study everything. Especially for simulation argument physicists and computer scientists argued a lot, but why if in our universe it would be possible to simulate another universe they think it would tell us anything about whether we live in simulation or not. In our universe could be less amount of physical laws than in theirs and even i we couldn't simulate it doesn't mean they couldn't, even bill nye said it would be to difficult to discern and i agree, i think we could never know.

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add. Where I agree that Hossenfelder is wrong, the way this article argues why is really even worse:

Quote

Human beings are indeed made of “particles”, in one sense. But reductionism is still wrong. We are not merely aggregates of parts. There is a unity and essence that makes us human beings, and this essence transcends particles and “equations.” Human beings have immaterial (spiritual) souls.

Bold by me.

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.