Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can >> be >> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it >> seems >> all laws are necessarily incomplete. >> It is just dogma of some materialists that the universe precisely follows >> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence >> for it either. > > The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science. That is plainly wrong. It is like saying what humans do is determined through a (quite accurate) description of what humans do.
It is an confusion of level. The universe can't follow laws, because laws are just descriptions of what the universe does. Science does show us that many aspects of the universe can be accurately described through laws. But this is not very suprising since the laws and the language they evolved out of emerge from the order of the universe and so they will reflect it. Also, our laws are known to not be accurate (they simply break down at some points), so necessarily the universe does not behave as our laws suggest it does. And we have no reason to assume it behaves as any other law suggest it does. Why would be believe it, other than taking it as a dogma? Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote: > >> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms >> in >> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just >> give >> us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will >> happen. >> In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise >> laws. >> Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual >> precise, >> deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we >> have >> no evidence for that. > > Probabilities in quantum mechanics can be calculated with great > precision. For example, radioactive decay is a truly random process, > but we can calculate to an arbitrary level of certainty how much of an > isotope will decay. In fact, it is much easier to calculate this than > to make predictions about deterministic but chaotic phenomena such as > the weather. > Sure, but that is not an argument against my point. Precise probabilities are just a way of making the unprecise (relatively) precise. They still do not allow us to make precise predictions - they say nothing about what will happen, just about what could happen. Also, statistical laws do not tell us anything about the correlation between (apparently) seperate things, so they actually inherently leave out some information that could very well be there (and most likely is there if we look at the data). They only describe probabilities of seperate events, not correlation of the outcome of seperate events. Say you have 1000 dices with 6 sides that behaves statistically totally random if analyzed seperately. Nevertheless they could be strongly correlated and this correlation is very hard to find using scientific methods and to describe - we wouldn't notice at all if we just observed the dices seperately or just a few dices (as we would usually do using scientific methods). Or you have 2 dices with 1000 sides that behaves statistically totally random if analyzed seperately, but if one shows 1 the other ALWAYS shows one as well. Using 1000 tries you will most likely notice nothing at all, and using 10000 tries you will still probably notice nothing because there will be most likely other instances as well where the two numbers are the same. So it would be very difficult to detect the correlation, even though it is quite important (given that you could accurately predict what the other 1000-sided dice will be in 1/1000 of the cases). And even worse, if you have 10 dices that *together* show no correlation at all (which we found out using many many tries), this doesn't mean that the combinated result of the 10 dices is not correlated with another set of 10 dices. To put it another way: Even if you showed that a given set of macrosopic objects is not correlated, they still may not behave random at all on a bigger level because they are correlated with another set of objects! Most scientists seem to completely disregard this as they think there could be no correlation between seperate macro objects because they decohere too quickly. But this assumes that our laws are correct when it comes to describing decoherence and it also assumes that decoherence means that there is NO correlation anymore (as oppposed to no definite/precise correlation). And we have very solid data that there is large scale correlation (psi - like telepathy and extremely unusual coincidences - or photsynthesis). Also there is no reason to apriori assume that there could not be correlation between distant events (unless you have a dogmatically classical worldview) - which would be inherently hard to measure. Using two assumptions we can then show that there can be no one stastical law for every universe that describes the events of multiverse (including correlations). One: There are infinititely many universes. Two: The universes are correlated. (since the information about correlation between universes is not contained in the statistical law for every particular universe) This even works if you substitute universe with multiverse and multiverse with multi-multiverse (etc...). So if there is no level at which you can "cap" reality, there can be no precise laws (if the events are correlated). benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34344219.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
