Watching this, I thought of something. I see these hijacked deist arguments all the time... but I have never heard someone even begin to link the god of the logical arguments to Yahweh. They claim they can prove an allpowerful intelligence, etc... but I can honestly say I have never heard them go from there to Yahweh. Has anyone else? I'm curious to hear someone try.
Anytime a theist attempts to use science, logic, or philosophy to "prove" the existence of a god, it smacks of dishonest desperation. They know they have nothing so they cross their fingers and try their best to express some intellectual chutzpah.
All around they claim absolution but have nothing to show for it, and then project against alleged atheist absolution... but that's just projection (bound within their own frustration after siding behind their hopelessly indefensible position).
The world is completely saturated with random behavior. The air you breath is a teaming brownian soup of atoms. Every physical object is the same. The Sun pours out 10 to the 12th photons every second each one traveling in a random direction. Atoms decay occurs at random. Parents contribute 1/2 of their genes, which half, its 50/50. A meteor hitting you is just the combined result of these many small random events.
I like the video. I disagree though that rolling a die is deterministic. Even is you knew a almost everything about the roll, there would be the random motion of the atoms that make the die. This random motion would prevent you from predicting with certainty the outcome of the roll. you might be able to get it close, but sometimes you would reach a tipping point that would not me predicted.
The only difference in the two types of randomness your describe is the probability of observing the event. Or perhaps there is a difference is that the top one is very hard to estimate the probability. Otherwise they are the same type of randomness.
Well a limited understanding. Which is not unheard of, it's common knowledge that we still have a very limited understanding of things like electricity, gravity, hell we're still searching for the elusive "god" particle that allows things to interact. We have made leaps technologically because of what we do know but there is a tremendous amount of data of even the immediate forces around us that eludes our grasp.
@LocustFurii This is true and it may be true that we can never know EVERYTHING but (and I'm not being or even trying to be snide, smart alecy or adversarial with this statement AT ALL) so what?
We can only base our model of reality (in our heads and otherwise) on what we know about this reality whatever it is. If we discover something different about it that changes our sense of reality we have no choice but to change our model/understanding of reality OR be wrong about its nature.
@themanofearth That is true but on a personal nature, I have accepted that belief in something even whether or not it's true is something that I need to exercise motivation and purpose. For instance, if I have a strong belief in myself that I can be a great programmer and land a good job doing it, the probability of my success goes way up if I strongly believe it's true even tho I can't prove it until I do it. So, skepticism only takes you so far in life. A tangent I know but for me it relates.
@LocustFurii Yeah but skepticism shouldn't take you anywhere the same as atheism. Atheism is only a position on a single assertion, skepticism is only a descriptive word to describe a position to question everything. What you do with the answers (even if the answer is "I don't know" or "I CAN'T know") is something completely different. That would be pure cynicism and optimism you're trying to get at in that post and no one is wholly one or the other. We're all cynical optimists. :-P
From a human perspective, wouldn't events occuring in the universe be considered completely random? It wouldn't be random if the pool balls had consciousness and are able to predict everything with 100% accuracy, which humans assume they do not. The absense of predictibility in consciousness implies that all actions are 100% random. Even though the laws governing the universe, ensure determinism, the events themselves don't know "anything" therefore unable to make such predictions.
@LocustFurii I suppose you're correct but that still leaves the difference between deterministic and non-deterministic randomness. We CAN predict a category of random deterministic events up to a certain point and also we can predict a randomization of events on both the deterministic AND non-deterministic events.
@themanofearth But there is absolutely no way to prove something to be "non-deterministic" because we will always be living with a limited amount of knowledge or at least an "assumed" amount of knowledge of the universe. Unless we become god, there would never be a point of arrogance where science could say, "well we know everything about the universe, therefore we can say this is a non-deterministic" process. There is always the chance of an unknown force.
@LocustFurii I think you missplaced the word "absolutely" in that statement. there is no way to prove something to be ABSOLUTELY non-deterministic. As it stands though, we must assume that quantum randomness IS non-deterministic because the entire idea of a quantum system relies on the well researched and accepted theory of superposition. There's always room for that idea to go under do to the non-absolutist position of science because of the problem of induction, but that's a different problem.
@themanofearth I will say however, that it seems really odd for science to base any theory on randomness for a number of reasons. The main reasons I can think of is that randomness seems counter-intuitive to science, we are trying to figure out how things work from cause to effect. Another reason is the random algorithm is quite complex. The only way I know how is using computer software and it's not a simple algorithm.
@LocustFurii Well they're not really basing it on randomness because that would be putting the cart before the horse. They're basing it on the inherent unpredictability of a system in both quantum theory and chaos theory: randomness is simply a descriptive word/concept used to describe the unpredictability of a system; thus the existence and subsequent use of randomness as an emergent property and predictive model of systems.
@themanofearth I don't know it just sounds a lot like the argument atheists use against theist, purporting that theists are too lazy to find out the truth so they just say it was god. Saying something is unpredictable to me is the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand how it works." It should never be assumed that a range of values just comes from magic, throwing 4's instead of 7's. I guess you could say, at least the unpredictabilit y is predictable in all this :P
@LocustFurii "Saying something is unpredictable to me is the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand how it works."
No because of this yes "the unpredictabilit y is predictable in all this" We CAN predict; that something is going to be; unpredictable: AND in the way it will be unpredictable. That's the thing that gets lost in quantum theory and especially in chaos theory because in chaos theory the unpredictability/chaos leads to and indeed becomes/is a necessary part of predictability/order.
@themanofearth Thanks for all your responses. Isn't it possible that just like weather, since there are so many variables, it's just extremely difficult to predict? Is it that incredulous that there may be too many variables or there's a lack of understanding of other forces at work that makes predicting values currently impossible? I guess what I'm saying is we use unpredictable to describe weather but we know if we were capable of tracking all the forces we could probably predict it. Magic?
@LocustFurii "Isn't it possible that just like weather, since there are so many variables, it's just extremely difficult to predict?" Yes. That's the nature of chaos theory and the idea of deterministic randomness. It may be that one day we will be able to know ALL of the initial conditions well enough to predict weather right down to the movement of every butterfly wing everywhere on the planet... But not likely... Hell it's not truly fathomable and it's not magic: It's simply chaos theory.
@themanofearth Nice :) Yeah, I was just trying to get down to the nuts and bolts of where you were coming from because you seem to have a really good grasp of the subject. Okay, well thanks again :D
@LocustFurii "...like the argument atheists use against theist, purporting that theists are too lazy to find out the truth so they just say it was god." I think that THAT is a lazy way of looking at it.
I don't think they're being lazy and not seeking the truth because (for their part) they believe they HAVE the truth so there is no need/reason to look to begin with.
Lazy? No.
Arrogant, self-assured, self-righteous, and/or absolutist? Yes and that's the problem. (At least from my perspective.)
@themanofearth "..they believe they HAVE the truth so there is no need/reason to look to begin with." I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude, it just seems to me if a theory is based on unpredictibitlity then it's missing part of the truth. Unpredictable to me defies logic, there must always be some logical relationship within a system no matter how small. Anways I appreciate all your answers.
@LocustFurii Well wouldn't part of the truth BE that we are incapable of predicting things thus making unpredictability part of "the truth" and therefore; logical?
@themanofearth I don't know, it seems to me that in physics our understanding of something translates into how well we can predict its behavior. For instance we understand light enough to create a computer model of it such as we do in games. I would argue that the degree we understand something is to the degree we could model it virtually or in the real world. I mean probably not on a grand scale such as the whole world as in the case of weather. But in an isolated case.
@LocustFurii but you're talking about deterministic things not nondeterministic. How do you model superposition for nondeterministic unpredictability/randomness? How do you model/measure every position of every molecule taking in, releasing, and/or being vibrated by every energy wave in even as small and insignificant as a single drop of water being frozen while falling from a cloud in real time for deterministic randomness? Every supercomputer on the planet put together couldn't do it.
@themanofearth I guess I'd have to say from my own personal point of view, we won't have good grasp of it until we can create a model of it. I'm a computer game programmer and understanding physics took a whole new meaning for me when I could apply theory of physics such as light and put it into a virtual world. I went from text book theory to really understanding the process. Perhaps someone like Einstein with more imagination than I have can model it in his mind and understand.
@LocustFurii "I guess I'd have to say from my own personal point of view, we won't have good grasp of it until we can create a model of it." Well isn't the logical conclusion of that kinda like saying that until we understand EVERYTHING there is to know in the universe we cannot have a good grasp on ANYTHING in the universe?
@LocustFurii "I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude" You didn't sound rude at all by the way. Very well thought out ideas and arguments. I'm really enjoying myself. :-)
@themanofearth This is a little off-topic but I found it extremely interesting. What happens if we find ourselves in this situation, and we can never truly understand the universe: /watch?v=Axw8AeNVS1c It's entirely possible and would pose a huge conundrum to scientific understanding about the true nature of the universe.
@themanofearth "Why would that pose a conundrum for science since science has no end goal?" True, and I suppose if we really are living in a virtual world, the sky really is the limit of what's possible :P
@LocustFurii Well a virtual world brings about an entirely different model of reality altogether because it is by nature a reality within a reality and by definition there still must be something to generate the virtual reality.
@themanofearth Haha, yeah it just occured to me a few minutes ago to subscribe. I actually really enjoyed the videos I've seen of you so look forward to watching more :)
'however there is nothing random about quantum fluctuations'
kkthxbb. quantum physics equals randomness. randomness is its essence. many people, Einstein included, spent their lives trying to disprove this - they failed. it is impossible to disprove this, even in theory.
quantum mechanics has nothing to do with randomness in terms of superposition. Superposition is a means of describing the lack of understanding of in what manner such events interact. A better example than the pool balls would've been network vs hierarchical interactions. Standard physics is hierarchical...while quantum mechanics is a network, thus the currently indeterminate nature of the initial event. But that's just me, I'll admit.
@OriginalTharios Well the randomness comes in the attempt to take a measurement of a quantum system because there is no way to determine/predict the outcome of a measurement even in principal. In contrast were you to know everything about a dice toss (direction, density, surface contours, torque, etc., etc.) in principal you could determine the outcome of the event. Deterministic vs. nondeterministic randomness. Randomness is simply a concept that applies to the unpredictability of something.
@themanofearth I think the largest issue is whether or not the currently unknowable factors will forever remain unknowable. I think that's a silly idea, considering all which has been unknowable before that we now know quite well. It's always just a matter of time.
@themanofearth It doesn't negate the appearance of randomness, but saying that it qualifies genuine randomness is like saying that the world was really flat until it was proven round, or that the sound barrier was unbreakable until it was broken. It was always round and it was always breakable. Not knowing is irrelevant to whether it's true or not.
@OriginalTharios Well i never said anything about "true randomness" and I never even ventured to defined the term. So tell me what is "true randomness"?
@themanofearth True randomness would be the concept that a given event's inherent unpredictability arises from absolute indeterminism. It lies in the the idea that unpredictability isn't due to the unknowability of the previous causal events, but rather that previous causal events are not present or not influential with regard to the "random" event. Misinterpretations of superposition frequently lead this kind of bogus thinking.
@OriginalTharios I think your problem is you're thinking that randomness is an actual thing and not simply a descriptive word to describe the unpredictability of something. If unpredictability/"indeterminism" were eliminated randomness would obviously be a meaningless word. However as it stands, because of (the apparent) superposition in quantum physics and the randomizing effect of chaos theory, indeterminism can't be eliminated and thus neither can randomness.
@themanofearth I really have no clue what you're talking about there. I DON'T think true randomness is a real factor...it's make-believe. I think the concept some others have that true randomness exists at all is the result of a misinterpretation of the principle you just mentioned. Which is what I said. And I do agree that until superposition is disproved, science will have to operate within the confines of supposed true randomness.
You are correct to point out that the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics is not he same as randomness in a classical system. How to interpret measurement but the Einstein/Bohm model of hidden states/variables has been disproven since Bell/Aspect.
your mistaking unpredictability for indeterminableness. I'm afraid I have to agree with RR on this one.
I do think its funny though how upset some people get though when you suggest their is no such thing as "free will" though. some get just as butt-hurt as christians sometimes.
as a side note, just because quantum mechanics may show the ability to be random, doesn't mean a human does. your controlled by your thoughts emotions, genetics, environment, subconscious ect, just like everyone else
@EricTheNihilist I'm not sure how I mistook unpredictability for indeterminableness... I did talk about determinate and nondeterminate RANDOMNESS but not indeterminableness...
Personally I don't think that free will doesn't exist. I think free will is an illusion that we are incapable of escaping from and really we wouldn't want to. Just realizing that it is an illusion doesn't make it less real it just means it's not what we think it is.
BionicDance is allergic to logic and reason! He/she refuses to hear anyone else's opinion. If you don't agree with him/her, he/she won't play with you anymore!! Just reminiscent of a 4 year old. Sorry B.D, you just have some growing up to do!! Profanity, insults and name calling belong back in the 3rd grade!! LOL
The argument of freewill is typically a failure from a religious standpoint also. For instance the "God doesn't reveal himself so we have the freewill to choose right over wrong" argument doesn't work. In Judaism the Torah demolishes this argument as god revealed himself through fantastic visions/miracles often, and yet the Israelites still had the freewill to "sin" as they so often did. You can make the same case for Christianity, NT, Jesus, etc.
@HeroesofApostasy A debate about free will usually gets bogged down in minutia that has virtually nothing to do with free will in the end. The first question people think is relevant is usually, "what is free will?" but that's even starting off on the wrong foot. The first question really should be, "why do we want free will?" Considering THAT question first will bring many false problems into the light.
@themanofearth I would say that we should ask "why does it seem to us that we have free will"? Personally I don't care if we have free will or not (well, I don't want to be a slave so Dennett's version of free will I do want).
Lol at the ending. Good rebutal. This is what you get if people read up on science, but don't completely understand it. And let me make this clear, there are only a handful of people who really 'understand' QM well enough to advance it.
Although I like RR, I thought his reasoning was weakish.
@De4sher Hey you smartie. By 'Free will" in the microscopic level i mean the indeterministic nature of quanta. It's not predecided which way atoms might go to, until the wave-function collapses
@Neueregel the difference i see between the french word "avec" and a plane wing, is the same difference between what one would call "free will" and the indeterministic quantic behavior.
not only are those 2 concepts 2 completely different things, they don't even live on the same planet.
how can you call free will, the behavior of somehting that isn't even conscient, and can't even want anything in the first place?
@Neueregel I suggest you not to take very word literally. "Choosing" might mean "selecting" as well. Thus, an atom can "select" which way to go, depending on the result of the collapse of the wavefunction. Don't be strict on definitions, only the events matter.
Perception doesn't matter in regards to true randomnimity i.e. something that occurs outside of cause and effect with no means of predicting it, even should one have omniscience. It is possible that in a controlled environment where we can identify all the relevant causes that should occur, we may see something that shouldn't occur and thus have potential evidence of something truly random, but as far as I'm aware there's no such evidence, so it all boils down to arguments over theory and logic.
@CuriousMoth Something that is "truly random" comes down to deterministic vs. nondeterministic randomness. Quantum randomness is nondeterministic.
I already dealt with the "see something that shouldn't occur..." bit in the video when I addressed the "naked man" sense of randomness in relation to science.
Watching this, I thought of something. I see these hijacked deist arguments all the time... but I have never heard someone even begin to link the god of the logical arguments to Yahweh. They claim they can prove an allpowerful intelligence, etc... but I can honestly say I have never heard them go from there to Yahweh. Has anyone else? I'm curious to hear someone try.
Sines314 11 months ago
@Sines314 That's a good point. I think I'll do a video on it when I have a chance.
themanofearth 11 months ago
Anytime a theist attempts to use science, logic, or philosophy to "prove" the existence of a god, it smacks of dishonest desperation. They know they have nothing so they cross their fingers and try their best to express some intellectual chutzpah.
All around they claim absolution but have nothing to show for it, and then project against alleged atheist absolution... but that's just projection (bound within their own frustration after siding behind their hopelessly indefensible position).
Hardryv 1 year ago
The world is completely saturated with random behavior. The air you breath is a teaming brownian soup of atoms. Every physical object is the same. The Sun pours out 10 to the 12th photons every second each one traveling in a random direction. Atoms decay occurs at random. Parents contribute 1/2 of their genes, which half, its 50/50. A meteor hitting you is just the combined result of these many small random events.
estragon9 1 year ago
I like the video. I disagree though that rolling a die is deterministic. Even is you knew a almost everything about the roll, there would be the random motion of the atoms that make the die. This random motion would prevent you from predicting with certainty the outcome of the roll. you might be able to get it close, but sometimes you would reach a tipping point that would not me predicted.
estragon9 1 year ago
The only difference in the two types of randomness your describe is the probability of observing the event. Or perhaps there is a difference is that the top one is very hard to estimate the probability. Otherwise they are the same type of randomness.
estragon9 1 year ago
Well a limited understanding. Which is not unheard of, it's common knowledge that we still have a very limited understanding of things like electricity, gravity, hell we're still searching for the elusive "god" particle that allows things to interact. We have made leaps technologically because of what we do know but there is a tremendous amount of data of even the immediate forces around us that eludes our grasp.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii This is true and it may be true that we can never know EVERYTHING but (and I'm not being or even trying to be snide, smart alecy or adversarial with this statement AT ALL) so what?
We can only base our model of reality (in our heads and otherwise) on what we know about this reality whatever it is. If we discover something different about it that changes our sense of reality we have no choice but to change our model/understanding of reality OR be wrong about its nature.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth That is true but on a personal nature, I have accepted that belief in something even whether or not it's true is something that I need to exercise motivation and purpose. For instance, if I have a strong belief in myself that I can be a great programmer and land a good job doing it, the probability of my success goes way up if I strongly believe it's true even tho I can't prove it until I do it. So, skepticism only takes you so far in life. A tangent I know but for me it relates.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii Yeah but skepticism shouldn't take you anywhere the same as atheism. Atheism is only a position on a single assertion, skepticism is only a descriptive word to describe a position to question everything. What you do with the answers (even if the answer is "I don't know" or "I CAN'T know") is something completely different. That would be pure cynicism and optimism you're trying to get at in that post and no one is wholly one or the other. We're all cynical optimists. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I'll concede to that :-P
LocustFurii 1 year ago
From a human perspective, wouldn't events occuring in the universe be considered completely random? It wouldn't be random if the pool balls had consciousness and are able to predict everything with 100% accuracy, which humans assume they do not. The absense of predictibility in consciousness implies that all actions are 100% random. Even though the laws governing the universe, ensure determinism, the events themselves don't know "anything" therefore unable to make such predictions.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii I suppose you're correct but that still leaves the difference between deterministic and non-deterministic randomness. We CAN predict a category of random deterministic events up to a certain point and also we can predict a randomization of events on both the deterministic AND non-deterministic events.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth But there is absolutely no way to prove something to be "non-deterministic" because we will always be living with a limited amount of knowledge or at least an "assumed" amount of knowledge of the universe. Unless we become god, there would never be a point of arrogance where science could say, "well we know everything about the universe, therefore we can say this is a non-deterministic" process. There is always the chance of an unknown force.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii I think you missplaced the word "absolutely" in that statement. there is no way to prove something to be ABSOLUTELY non-deterministic. As it stands though, we must assume that quantum randomness IS non-deterministic because the entire idea of a quantum system relies on the well researched and accepted theory of superposition. There's always room for that idea to go under do to the non-absolutist position of science because of the problem of induction, but that's a different problem.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Ya, I see what you're saying. Good point.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@themanofearth I will say however, that it seems really odd for science to base any theory on randomness for a number of reasons. The main reasons I can think of is that randomness seems counter-intuitive to science, we are trying to figure out how things work from cause to effect. Another reason is the random algorithm is quite complex. The only way I know how is using computer software and it's not a simple algorithm.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii Well they're not really basing it on randomness because that would be putting the cart before the horse. They're basing it on the inherent unpredictability of a system in both quantum theory and chaos theory: randomness is simply a descriptive word/concept used to describe the unpredictability of a system; thus the existence and subsequent use of randomness as an emergent property and predictive model of systems.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I don't know it just sounds a lot like the argument atheists use against theist, purporting that theists are too lazy to find out the truth so they just say it was god. Saying something is unpredictable to me is the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand how it works." It should never be assumed that a range of values just comes from magic, throwing 4's instead of 7's. I guess you could say, at least the unpredictabilit y is predictable in all this :P
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii "Saying something is unpredictable to me is the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand how it works."
No because of this yes "the unpredictabilit y is predictable in all this" We CAN predict; that something is going to be; unpredictable: AND in the way it will be unpredictable. That's the thing that gets lost in quantum theory and especially in chaos theory because in chaos theory the unpredictability/chaos leads to and indeed becomes/is a necessary part of predictability/order.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Thanks for all your responses. Isn't it possible that just like weather, since there are so many variables, it's just extremely difficult to predict? Is it that incredulous that there may be too many variables or there's a lack of understanding of other forces at work that makes predicting values currently impossible? I guess what I'm saying is we use unpredictable to describe weather but we know if we were capable of tracking all the forces we could probably predict it. Magic?
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii "Isn't it possible that just like weather, since there are so many variables, it's just extremely difficult to predict?" Yes. That's the nature of chaos theory and the idea of deterministic randomness. It may be that one day we will be able to know ALL of the initial conditions well enough to predict weather right down to the movement of every butterfly wing everywhere on the planet... But not likely... Hell it's not truly fathomable and it's not magic: It's simply chaos theory.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Nice :) Yeah, I was just trying to get down to the nuts and bolts of where you were coming from because you seem to have a really good grasp of the subject. Okay, well thanks again :D
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii "Thanks for all your responses." My pleasure. I love this stuff. :-)
themanofearth 1 year ago
@LocustFurii "...like the argument atheists use against theist, purporting that theists are too lazy to find out the truth so they just say it was god." I think that THAT is a lazy way of looking at it.
I don't think they're being lazy and not seeking the truth because (for their part) they believe they HAVE the truth so there is no need/reason to look to begin with.
Lazy? No.
Arrogant, self-assured, self-righteous, and/or absolutist? Yes and that's the problem. (At least from my perspective.)
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth "..they believe they HAVE the truth so there is no need/reason to look to begin with." I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude, it just seems to me if a theory is based on unpredictibitlity then it's missing part of the truth. Unpredictable to me defies logic, there must always be some logical relationship within a system no matter how small. Anways I appreciate all your answers.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii Well wouldn't part of the truth BE that we are incapable of predicting things thus making unpredictability part of "the truth" and therefore; logical?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I don't know, it seems to me that in physics our understanding of something translates into how well we can predict its behavior. For instance we understand light enough to create a computer model of it such as we do in games. I would argue that the degree we understand something is to the degree we could model it virtually or in the real world. I mean probably not on a grand scale such as the whole world as in the case of weather. But in an isolated case.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii but you're talking about deterministic things not nondeterministic. How do you model superposition for nondeterministic unpredictability/randomness? How do you model/measure every position of every molecule taking in, releasing, and/or being vibrated by every energy wave in even as small and insignificant as a single drop of water being frozen while falling from a cloud in real time for deterministic randomness? Every supercomputer on the planet put together couldn't do it.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I guess I'd have to say from my own personal point of view, we won't have good grasp of it until we can create a model of it. I'm a computer game programmer and understanding physics took a whole new meaning for me when I could apply theory of physics such as light and put it into a virtual world. I went from text book theory to really understanding the process. Perhaps someone like Einstein with more imagination than I have can model it in his mind and understand.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii "I guess I'd have to say from my own personal point of view, we won't have good grasp of it until we can create a model of it." Well isn't the logical conclusion of that kinda like saying that until we understand EVERYTHING there is to know in the universe we cannot have a good grasp on ANYTHING in the universe?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@LocustFurii "I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude" You didn't sound rude at all by the way. Very well thought out ideas and arguments. I'm really enjoying myself. :-)
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth This is a little off-topic but I found it extremely interesting. What happens if we find ourselves in this situation, and we can never truly understand the universe: /watch?v=Axw8AeNVS1c It's entirely possible and would pose a huge conundrum to scientific understanding about the true nature of the universe.
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii Why would that pose a conundrum for science since science has no end goal?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth "Why would that pose a conundrum for science since science has no end goal?" True, and I suppose if we really are living in a virtual world, the sky really is the limit of what's possible :P
LocustFurii 1 year ago
@LocustFurii Well a virtual world brings about an entirely different model of reality altogether because it is by nature a reality within a reality and by definition there still must be something to generate the virtual reality.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@LocustFurii Thanks for the sub by the way. It's always an honor to have someone that you're having a discussion with subscribe to you. :-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Haha, yeah it just occured to me a few minutes ago to subscribe. I actually really enjoyed the videos I've seen of you so look forward to watching more :)
LocustFurii 1 year ago
'however there is nothing random about quantum fluctuations'
kkthxbb. quantum physics equals randomness. randomness is its essence. many people, Einstein included, spent their lives trying to disprove this - they failed. it is impossible to disprove this, even in theory.
debating facts is not how we play this game.
bocckoka 1 year ago
quantum mechanics has nothing to do with randomness in terms of superposition. Superposition is a means of describing the lack of understanding of in what manner such events interact. A better example than the pool balls would've been network vs hierarchical interactions. Standard physics is hierarchical...while quantum mechanics is a network, thus the currently indeterminate nature of the initial event. But that's just me, I'll admit.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
@OriginalTharios Well the randomness comes in the attempt to take a measurement of a quantum system because there is no way to determine/predict the outcome of a measurement even in principal. In contrast were you to know everything about a dice toss (direction, density, surface contours, torque, etc., etc.) in principal you could determine the outcome of the event. Deterministic vs. nondeterministic randomness. Randomness is simply a concept that applies to the unpredictability of something.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I think the largest issue is whether or not the currently unknowable factors will forever remain unknowable. I think that's a silly idea, considering all which has been unknowable before that we now know quite well. It's always just a matter of time.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
@OriginalTharios Not really. The fact that we don't know now and/or we may know in the future doesn't negate randomness now.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth It doesn't negate the appearance of randomness, but saying that it qualifies genuine randomness is like saying that the world was really flat until it was proven round, or that the sound barrier was unbreakable until it was broken. It was always round and it was always breakable. Not knowing is irrelevant to whether it's true or not.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
@OriginalTharios Well i never said anything about "true randomness" and I never even ventured to defined the term. So tell me what is "true randomness"?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth True randomness would be the concept that a given event's inherent unpredictability arises from absolute indeterminism. It lies in the the idea that unpredictability isn't due to the unknowability of the previous causal events, but rather that previous causal events are not present or not influential with regard to the "random" event. Misinterpretations of superposition frequently lead this kind of bogus thinking.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
@OriginalTharios I think your problem is you're thinking that randomness is an actual thing and not simply a descriptive word to describe the unpredictability of something. If unpredictability/"indeterminism" were eliminated randomness would obviously be a meaningless word. However as it stands, because of (the apparent) superposition in quantum physics and the randomizing effect of chaos theory, indeterminism can't be eliminated and thus neither can randomness.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I really have no clue what you're talking about there. I DON'T think true randomness is a real factor...it's make-believe. I think the concept some others have that true randomness exists at all is the result of a misinterpretation of the principle you just mentioned. Which is what I said. And I do agree that until superposition is disproved, science will have to operate within the confines of supposed true randomness.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
@OriginalTharios Ah. ok I misunderstood what you were trying to get at then... odd conversation now. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
If, God wasn't doing something in the hearts of men He would die & be history. I assume a predictable randomness at the expense of freewill
nedmorlef 1 year ago
Pool and Dice?... Shut up and place your bets ;)
samuraispacemonkey 1 year ago
@samuraispacemonkey I love'em both. Good at pool and love playing craps. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
I kan maiks random flashes on dirt back rodez?
DonQuixotedeKaw 1 year ago
wow... impressive video.
I have nothing intelligent to add at the moment, but I wanted to add my praise nonetheless.
vesman81 1 year ago
@vesman81 Thank you very much.
themanofearth 1 year ago
good illistraion!
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
@RavenBlaze Thank you :-)
themanofearth 1 year ago
SO QUIET TURN YOUR MIC UP
superraiden 1 year ago
The link you recommended "The Secret Life of Chaos" is just awesome. I saw it before but thanks for the refresh. Merry Magic Jeebus Day.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
@bigboy45454545
Yup - "The Secret Life of Chaos" is most excellent!
@themanofearth
Gotta love that Quantum :-D
BrianJ1962 1 year ago
You are correct to point out that the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics is not he same as randomness in a classical system. How to interpret measurement but the Einstein/Bohm model of hidden states/variables has been disproven since Bell/Aspect.
socrates856 1 year ago
Good video. I won't quibble with anything. :)
awatson945 1 year ago
@Ambary2Shy Just like the deterministic randomness of chaos theory.
themanofearth 1 year ago
Great video. I understood most of it. o_0 However, my brain still hurts. LOL
ReligiousJezta 1 year ago
your mistaking unpredictability for indeterminableness. I'm afraid I have to agree with RR on this one.
I do think its funny though how upset some people get though when you suggest their is no such thing as "free will" though. some get just as butt-hurt as christians sometimes.
as a side note, just because quantum mechanics may show the ability to be random, doesn't mean a human does. your controlled by your thoughts emotions, genetics, environment, subconscious ect, just like everyone else
EricTheNihilist 1 year ago
@EricTheNihilist I'm not sure how I mistook unpredictability for indeterminableness... I did talk about determinate and nondeterminate RANDOMNESS but not indeterminableness...
Personally I don't think that free will doesn't exist. I think free will is an illusion that we are incapable of escaping from and really we wouldn't want to. Just realizing that it is an illusion doesn't make it less real it just means it's not what we think it is.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I just don't like calling the illusion of free will, actual free will, but thats just semantics really.
EricTheNihilist 1 year ago
@EricTheNihilist I can understand that.
themanofearth 1 year ago
I wonder how Michael will kill his clone this time?
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner LOL! I don't know but I'll bet it will be horrible. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
I think...I like cheese. :)
BionicDance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BionicDance is allergic to logic and reason! He/she refuses to hear anyone else's opinion. If you don't agree with him/her, he/she won't play with you anymore!! Just reminiscent of a 4 year old. Sorry B.D, you just have some growing up to do!! Profanity, insults and name calling belong back in the 3rd grade!! LOL
angelshoulders 1 year ago
I actually own a set of dice like those.
Fully made of metal, very small, very heavy.
Xgya2000 1 year ago
The argument of freewill is typically a failure from a religious standpoint also. For instance the "God doesn't reveal himself so we have the freewill to choose right over wrong" argument doesn't work. In Judaism the Torah demolishes this argument as god revealed himself through fantastic visions/miracles often, and yet the Israelites still had the freewill to "sin" as they so often did. You can make the same case for Christianity, NT, Jesus, etc.
HeroesofApostasy 1 year ago
@HeroesofApostasy A debate about free will usually gets bogged down in minutia that has virtually nothing to do with free will in the end. The first question people think is relevant is usually, "what is free will?" but that's even starting off on the wrong foot. The first question really should be, "why do we want free will?" Considering THAT question first will bring many false problems into the light.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I would say that we should ask "why does it seem to us that we have free will"? Personally I don't care if we have free will or not (well, I don't want to be a slave so Dennett's version of free will I do want).
awatson945 1 year ago
Lol at the ending. Good rebutal. This is what you get if people read up on science, but don't completely understand it. And let me make this clear, there are only a handful of people who really 'understand' QM well enough to advance it.
Although I like RR, I thought his reasoning was weakish.
ContinuumXT 1 year ago
Free will exists only in quantum level
Neueregel 1 year ago
@Neueregel LOL! X-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Neueregel aha... so at the level where no brains, and no living beings exist, there exists free will.
do you not see how stupid that is?
and that's ignoring the fact that nobody has any idea what they mean by "free will".
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher I think it was a joke.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@De4sher Hey you smartie. By 'Free will" in the microscopic level i mean the indeterministic nature of quanta. It's not predecided which way atoms might go to, until the wave-function collapses
Neueregel 1 year ago
@Neueregel the difference i see between the french word "avec" and a plane wing, is the same difference between what one would call "free will" and the indeterministic quantic behavior.
not only are those 2 concepts 2 completely different things, they don't even live on the same planet.
how can you call free will, the behavior of somehting that isn't even conscient, and can't even want anything in the first place?
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher By free will" in the microscopic level i mean its ability to choose between which way to go
Neueregel 1 year ago
@Neueregel aha... and you never asked yourself about what you mean by "chose", right?
cuz everything in there is fine and dandy otherwise.
the word "chose" implies that you CAN chose, A.k.a. "chose" means "free will", aka, your definition is circular ;)
try again.
De4sher 1 year ago
@Neueregel I suggest you not to take very word literally. "Choosing" might mean "selecting" as well. Thus, an atom can "select" which way to go, depending on the result of the collapse of the wavefunction. Don't be strict on definitions, only the events matter.
Neueregel 1 year ago
Quantum mechanics hurt brain!
anubis2814 1 year ago
@anubis2814 Oh come on! Brain hurting is fun :-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth True no mental pain, no mental gain lol
anubis2814 1 year ago
Perception doesn't matter in regards to true randomnimity i.e. something that occurs outside of cause and effect with no means of predicting it, even should one have omniscience. It is possible that in a controlled environment where we can identify all the relevant causes that should occur, we may see something that shouldn't occur and thus have potential evidence of something truly random, but as far as I'm aware there's no such evidence, so it all boils down to arguments over theory and logic.
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
@CuriousMoth Something that is "truly random" comes down to deterministic vs. nondeterministic randomness. Quantum randomness is nondeterministic.
I already dealt with the "see something that shouldn't occur..." bit in the video when I addressed the "naked man" sense of randomness in relation to science.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@YOSHY343 My pleasure. It's an amazing presentation of the chaos theory. I hope you enjoy it.
themanofearth 1 year ago