Let's stop and apply simple logic. There are two possibilities in physics: 1. Events are caused by deterministic sequence. 2. Events are caused at random. If it can be shown that neither of these makes sense, then there must be a third possibility.
1. Determinism. In a purely deterministic universe, every event happens because it is forced to happen by prior events. Those events include your thoughts. If your thoughts are forced upon you, then you have no control over what you think, say or do. You are a puppet of blind, indifferent cosmic forces. 2. Randomism In a purely random universe, anything whatsoever can happen, at least within parameters. If that universe is large enough, then there will be isolated pockets, perhaps of immense size, that will give the false appearance of order, but in fact, the overall universe will be chaotic. Note that, in neither of the two cases above, does anyone have real control over his thoughts and actions. Therefore, any creatures living in such a universe, (or even in a universe that combines both determinsm and randomism), can apply logic or reason to his thoughts and actions. 3. Free will Only in a universe that incorporates free will can there be reason, science or even, moral right and wrong. -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- On May 9, 2:34 pm, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > God doesn't play dice: cause and effect > (causality and dependence) > > Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didn’t accept > the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought > that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some > real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation > probabilistic. Thinking so - Einstein wasn’t alone. > P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between > cause and effect is ‘ intellectual lechery’. And Lorentz, > de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the > micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered > that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they > can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible > to describe not only probabilistically but in details too. > # > But other group of scientists didn’t agree with them. > Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must > refuse to describe particle’s behaviour to the smallest detail. > Here is enough to use Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. > Most scientists agreed with them saying: ‘There isn’t better > interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg’s ’. > From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation > and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without > success. And at last Feynman said: ‘I think I can safely say > that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’ And somebody > agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can > accustomed to it. > Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world > and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, > dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions > and new symmetries . . .and etc) > # > I try to understand the situation. > 1. > We have dualistic particle as a ‘ math point’. > 2. > We have two kinds of space: > a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - > b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t) > 3. > The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point > to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). > # > This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. > Is this situation hard puzzle ? > Isn’t clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) > and its shadow – (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle – problem ? > But these categories of being scientists try no debate now. > Why? > Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . > . . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I don’t know. > # > I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting > book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. > I must reread it again. > Where is it? Here it is: > Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: ‘The Praise of Folly.’ > ===============. > All the best. > Socratus. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
