John M writes: > > Tom Caylor writes: > > > > >1) The reductionist definition that something is > > determined by the > > >sum of atomic parts and rules. > > > > So how about this: EITHER something is determined by > > the sum of atomic parts > > and rules OR it is truly random. > >"Sum of atomic parts"? I am not sure about the figment > based on primitive observations and on then >applicable explanatory calculative conclusions within >the narrow model of the ancient scientist's views, >called "atom". > >Then again the phrase restricts its validity to THAT >(figmentious) bunch of allaged atoms, period. Nothing >exists as a cut-off singularity without intereffects.
I understood Tom's phrase "atomic parts" as meaning "component parts" rather than literally what scientists call "atoms". >"RULES" to the rescue! how far are you willing to >accept the rules? Do they involve the ambience, all >the way to the 'end' of the existing world with ALL >its intereffectiveness? In that case a different >wording would be more appropriate...(Not the closed >model) > >The bigger thing is your "OR" (in caps, meaning that >it is exclusive). You prescribe only TWO alternatives. > >That would be right if we are onmiscient and exclude >any other ways of that interactive endless world - >allowed to be followed. It was deliberately left vague: the "rules" are not necessarily the rules of present day science, but the rules of any possible future science, or, as you suggest, the rules known by an omniscient being. >Truly random IMO means that we truly believe in our >ignorance to detect some (so far undiscovered?) >'order' with 'rules' leading to those 'truly random' >results. Yes, this is just what I meant: the truly random is beyond *any* rules, including ones not yet discovered. Otherwise, it would not be truly random. >Same with chaos: we just did not (yet?) learn that >kind of processes in the wide world existence that >would result in our "chaos"- called process. (Like >random.) I'm not sure what you mean here. In principle, a chaotic process could follow very simple and well-understood rules. The difficulty is that a future state of a chaotic system may be so sensitively dependent on initial conditions that it is impossible to measure these conditions to the requisite level of accuracy. The limitation is practical, not theoretical. >Your following words underline this position: > > > > There are two mechanisms which make events seem > > random in ordinary life. One > > is the difficulty of actually making the required > > measurements, finding the > > appropriate rules and then doing the calculations. > >Amen (difficulty?) > > > > Classical chaos may make > > this practically impossible, but we still understand > > that the event (such as > > a coin toss) is fundamentally deterministic, and the > > randomness is only apparent. > >Amen again ("we don't know".) > > > > The other mechanism is quantum randomness, for > > example in the case of > > radioctive decay. In a single world interpretation > > of QM this is, as far as > > I am aware, true randomness. In a no-collapse/ many > > worlds interpretation > > there is no true randomness because all outcomes > > occur deterministically > > according to the SWE. However, there is apparent > > randomness due to what > > Bruno calls the first person indeterminacy: the > > observer does not know which > > world he will end up in from a first person > > viewpoint, even though he knows > > that from a third person viewpoint he will end up in > > all of them. > >Sorry to agree both with QM and the new version of the >classical MWI. The former is a 2nd tier (linear? >-after Alwyn Scott) version of the "model" 'physical >views', the latter is beyond the level I like to >speculate on. > > > > I find the randomness resulting from first person > > indeterminacy in the MWI > > difficult to get my mind around. In the case of the > > chaotic coin toss one > > can imagine God being able to do the calculations > > and predict the outcome, > > but even God would not be able to tell me which > > world I will find myself in > > when a quantum event induces splitting. And yet, I > > am stuck thinking of > > quantum events in the MWI as fundamentally > > non-random. > >Make yourself a god that could figure it all out. But the point is that it is *impossible* even in theory - even for an omniscient being - to figure it out. If I undergo destructive teleportation and two exact copies emerge in two separate locations, A and B, can I expect to find myself at A or at B? From the symmetry of the situation, I *must* have a 1/2 chance of finding myself at one or other location post-teleportation, and not even God can change this without changing the initial experimental setup. Eric Cavalcanti, some time back, objected to the above using the example of a computer game: if a player is "jacked in" as the first person character who undergoes teleportation to A and B, the game designer from his godlike stance can *direct* that he experience ending up in either A or B every time. The problem with this is that the symmetry of the original example is destroyed, in that either copy A or copy B is specially chosen to be fed to the player as his first person experience. In the real situation, this choice would be ineluctably random. Stathis Papaioannou _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---