Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk
> <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to