TYPO ERROR Instead of "Therefore any creatures" should bem "Therefore NO creatures." My apologies.
On May 10, 6:09 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
