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,
>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
>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'
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
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.
> > 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
> > 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.
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
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