Making peace with femininity

[Dave Toast]

If I'm reading you aright, you are saying acausality only appears to be true, empirically and mathematically.It's not REALLY true,it's not part of the quantum system even though mathematics and empricism, predict ,and have observed it as such.

Nope, nothing like that really mate. This is doing my head in. I didn't think I was that bad at expressing myself!

I'm saying that we cannot tell, as a matter of empirical fact, whether causality or indeed acausality are operative beyond the level of the Planck scale. Acausality is often implied but that isn't because it is explicitly apparent in the quantum system, it's because the only method by which we can make sense of what we can know about quanta is statistical, according to a probablilty distiribution. As such, one could be forgiven for thinking that the values of measurables themselves are probablilistic in nature and therefore acausal. But that is not the case, in truth we cannot know, empirically.

"Acausality is ultimately impossible because,well,conditionality."

This is a different matter entirely. The above is just science and interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. But this is a philosophical question. It'll never have a definitive answer empirically. But the logic of it is pretty straightforward as long as you're working with clear definitions.

Empirical opinions can be ventured however. Personally, I've never seen a shred of empirical evidence for acausality and I know that there isn't any such evidence. Whereas the evidence for causality is rather overwhelming wherever you look, both inside and out.

DaveT:It's not really a conflation because billiard ball causality is, in effect, a subset of conditionality. Conditionality is infinite in nature whereas billiard ball causality is just a scientific and far more precise delineation of it, an attempt to isolate and discern specific, empirical aspects of it.

Of course, billiard ball causality is always going to be contingent thereby.

Ataraxia: Hmmm, a subset.To be honest,it sounds slippery to me.

Ok, the conditionality 'set' comprises the likes of existence, being, identity, Law of the Excluded Middle, etc. ad infinitum; as well as the likes of the billiard ball causality that produced the earthquake I felt last night, and my feeling it, and my thinking about it.

Conditionality is a purely logical entity which describes the true and infinite nature of causation. Billiard ball causality is an analytical delineation of certain aspects of conditionality, namely the aspects apparent in the empirical world, which are nonetheless consistent with conditionality.

So is acausailty a subset of conditionality too?

If acausality existed, it would still be subsumed by conditionality. But you've got to ruminate on whether acausality can exist or not. I'll leave that to you.

Is it fair to say your position on QM is something like: "Acausality within QM is kind of interesting to study,but it's not really what is going on.I know because conditionality(an infinite,absolute truth) would prevent a non-determinate event,ultimately.Science just haven't yet discovered it's causes"?

Not really. I know acausality cannot be proven true empirically or even evidenced, not because of conditionality but because of the scientific understanding of the fundamental limits to the questions we can empirically ask of the physical. That's the science of it.

The logic of it dictates, certainly to me, that acausality is impossible.

And besides the logic of it, the common sense of it seems all too obvious to me.

For the sake of this argument lets assume we are both physicalists for a moment.Can a particle just pop into existence?

That depends on what you mean. If you're referring to 'quantum acausality' then no, but that matter was never really a question of particles popping into existence. Rather it is a question of whether measurables in a quantum system have definitive values or have probabilistic values.

However, particles 'popping into existence' is usually referred to in connection with virtual pair production and annihilation in the quantum foam. That is a valid theory in QM, explaining the likes of Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. It's also used in theories speculating as to the genesis of spacetime.

[brokenhead]

Not really. I know acausality cannot be proven true empirically or even evidenced, not because of conditionality but because of the scientific understanding of the fundamental limits to the questions we can empirically ask of the physical. That's the science of it.

It seems, as I think has been mentioned already, that physicists do not concern themselves with proving the possibility of acausality. In fact, to my recollection of having studied this as an undergrad, the topic of acausality is barely brought up, let alone given emphasis. It must be remembered that virtual pairs do not always annihilate. Hawking won the Nobel for this, didn't he? At the event horizon of a black hole, virtual pairs come into existence spontaneously as they do elsewhere. But here, one of the pair falls immediately into the event horizon, and the other escapes, giving the effect of radiation "coming from" a black hole. It is a statistical effect, meaning only a small portion of virtual paricles created at an event horizon have this fate. I'll try to dig up something from my old texts, but I must emphasize, they are dated.

[divine focus]

One does not need to complicate in order to simplify. It is not a deconstruction that is necessary, but a new
"story," as Alex put it--a new understanding of yourself compatible with your held beliefs that allows you to put the methods of growth into practice within your experience. Breaking yourself down serves very little purpose except that of the experience itself. The mind does not need accuracy within concepts, but accuracy from experience. It is an accuracy of self, not an accuracy of the outside world. The outside world only exists within concepts, and its reality independent of you must be believed by the mind to be "real' or absolute. Deconstruction cannot happen without this perception, but the perception is not true.

Deconstruct as in examine analytically, not as in break yourself down.

There is no difference in the way these phrases are being used. You can deconstruct as you are applying practices within your experience, but without the experiential application the deconstruction holds little benefit. It is not a matter of first understand, then experience. The experience itself produces the understanding you are trying to arrive solely intellectually.

[Dave Toast]

Solely intellectually?

Are you seriously going to contend that intellectualising is not experiencing?

Obviously, application is required but what direction is that application going to take?

It's an all too obvious point you're making, as is mine.

[Dave Toast]

Not really. I know acausality cannot be proven true empirically or even evidenced, not because of conditionality but because of the scientific understanding of the fundamental limits to the questions we can empirically ask of the physical. That's the science of it.

It seems, as I think has been mentioned already, that physicists do not concern themselves with proving the possibility of acausality. In fact, to my recollection of having studied this as an undergrad, the topic of acausality is barely brought up, let alone given emphasis. It must be remembered that virtual pairs do not always annihilate. Hawking won the Nobel for this, didn't he? At the event horizon of a black hole, virtual pairs come into existence spontaneously as they do elsewhere. But here, one of the pair falls immediately into the event horizon, and the other escapes, giving the effect of radiation "coming from" a black hole. It is a statistical effect, meaning only a small portion of virtual paricles created at an event horizon have this fate. I'll try to dig up something from my old texts, but I must emphasize, they are dated.

No need mate. You are right and that is Hawking radiation. It should be noted that the theory has never been empirically verified though.

[RobertGreenSky]

Nagarjuna's was an advanced teaching, spoken from the top of the mountain. You have to be so high up the mountain to hear that teaching clearly. In order to get up to the appropriate height to hear it clearly, one needs a clear and practiced understanding of the nature of truth and absolutes in order to expose and understand and practice emptiness in the first place.

Mr. Toast,

You haven't been to the mountain, you have been to Google, finding in its returns one of the lesser compositions attributed to Nagarjuna yet even then you do not make any case that what is taught at Genius Forum as 'ultimate truth' is paralleled in Nagarjuna. It is one thing to quote 'Without worldly truth, ultimate truth cannot be obtained. Without obtaining ultimate truth, nirvana cannot be obtained.' It is another thing to find in Nagarjuna that this 'ultimate truth' is verbal in its nature. It is still another thing to find in Nagarjuna or in Zen or in Daoism that this 'ultimate truth' (paramartha) has anything whatsoever to do with 'Totality', 'A=A', 'Quinn-Solway Conditionality', or any of the concepts you have obliviously accepted. It is another thing still to find that those concepts as accepted at Genius Forum are necessary even in the field of 'samvriti'.

I did not show up to argue with the scrubs, especially one who in every post adds another layer of materials he cannot be bothered to substantiate. What does 'transmission beyond words' mean to you, Mr. Toast? It is not verbal. It finds verbosity only afterward and then in the merest of mentions like 'transmission beyond words'; you cannot approach it through the word. What does 'don't know' mean to you, Mr. Toast? Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, and Hui-neng were fighting for your heart; Quinn and Rowden are fighting for your adulation.

[Dave Toast]

Wow.

[Ataraxia]

I'm saying that we cannot tell, as a matter of empirical fact, whether causality or indeed acausality are operative beyond the level of the Planck scale. Acausality is often implied but that isn't because it is explicitly apparent in the quantum system, it's because the only method by which we can make sense of what we can know about quanta is statistical, according to a probablilty distiribution. As such, one could be forgiven for thinking that the values of measurables themselves are probablilistic in nature and therefore acausal. But that is not the case, in truth we cannot know, empirically.

Ok thats clearer, cheers

But this doesn't seem, to me at least,the 'conventional interpetation' held by QM scientists-for example I don't think Victor would say that.Clearly, I haven't delved into this as deeply as you have and wouldn't be able to mount an empirical argument against.

Wiki:Copenhagen interpretation

Acceptance among physicists
According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[7]

later

Crticisms
Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements.

Presumably you're in the latter group.

DT:
Ok, the conditionality 'set' comprises the likes of existence, being, identity, Law of the Excluded Middle, etc. ad infinitum; as well as the likes of the billiard ball causality that produced the earthquake I felt last night, and my feeling it, and my thinking about it.

With you so far.

Conditionality is a purely logical entity which describes the true and infinite nature of causation.

Steady on.This is where I have a problem whereof you speak.

If acausality is indeed possible at the quantum level(granted you say it's not empirically) then how can it be said causation is "true and infinite in nature".Conditionality can be describe as such sure,but causation?

It's my 'space goat' problem.

If acausality existed, it would still be subsumed by conditionality. But you've got to ruminate on whether acausality can exist or not. I'll leave that to you.

Clearly I do have to ruminate on this some more.

Not really. I know acausality cannot be proven true empirically or even evidenced, not because of conditionality but because of the scientific understanding of the fundamental limits to the questions we can empirically ask of the physical. That's the science of it.

Far enough.I'll have to look into this further.

The logic of it dictates, certainly to me, that acausality is impossible.

And besides the logic of it, the common sense of it seems all too obvious to me.

Yes,it's not an unreasonable view.I view the world and causality seems to be the case,always.

I just haven't quite 'bought' it yet.The logic still seems a bit skew whiff.I suppose I'm somewhere approximating where Nat is at."Houston theres a problem."

Thanks for going to the effort :)

[Laird]

Dave,

For the sake of this argument lets assume we are both physicalists for a moment.Can a particle just pop into existence?

That depends on what you mean. If you're referring to 'quantum acausality' then no, but that matter was never really a question of particles popping into existence. Rather it is a question of whether measurables in a quantum system have definitive values or have probabilistic values.

However, particles 'popping into existence' is usually referred to in connection with virtual pair production and annihilation in the quantum foam. That is a valid theory in QM, explaining the likes of Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. It's also used in theories speculating as to the genesis of spacetime.

I'm battling to make sense of what you're saying here. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. "Yes, particles can just pop into existence" but on the other hand, "No, this doesn't support acausality". What I want to know is why this doesn't support acausality. As far as I understand things, when particles just pop into existence, we can't say that there's any particular reason behind such an event beyond it being a random occurrence within a probability distribution. This to me sounds like a pretty good description of an acausal process. Then again, I haven't studied this topic all that much and you might be trying to say that after all, there are causal processes behind the randomness. Is that what you're saying?

[Faust]

Faust,

Perhaps you could list say, 5, succinct reasons why the following statement can't be considered sound:

"Evolution is a demonstrable fact and only the specific mechanics of its processes are still up for debate".

I personally can't think of 1.

your statement is a blatant contradiction. Evolution can't be a demonstrable fact if the specific mechanisms of its processes are still up for debate!!! What an idiotic thing to say. Especially when you put in "demonstrable"...


speciation hasn't been proven at all, because it is impossible. Each species has its own limited gene pool, and can only produce its own species. Any variance or differing traits are still part of the species, so a taller human is still a human, etc... There's no dog with wings, or hairless monkeys that resemble hairless humans. So natural selection can't progress anything because all these traits still propogate the same species. Evolution would have to rely on nothing but random mutations that need to be so alien as to help propogate a different species, such as a cow with a giraffe's neck. Then, these mutations need to have successive mutations in order to bring about a larger change, such as a cow's neck becoming longer and longer. This is not only extremely rare, but physically impossible. These preliminary mutations aren't even advantageous for natural selection to work on them, nor would they necessarily always turn out properly in the new generation. If an ape is to become a human, it would have to somehow be born bipedal and start walking bipedally, and conceiving bipedal apes. If evolution has a starting point, then these preliminary changes should be seen today, as random mutations don't take millions of years to happen, because they aren't based on natural selection. We should be able to see monkeys being born bipedal, or hairless, which would then begin the process of natural selection if these traits are even advantageous, then they would be passed on. BUT, there's more problems. These apes will still mate with apes, and it's not possible to make an entirely new species while you're conceiving with the same one all the time. A hairless monkey would still be a monkey, there would be no reason for it to speciate and not be able to reproduce with monkeys anymore.

Alas we see that no physical mutation has any beneficial effects for animals or humans, nor do they turn humans into another species. If humans can evolve, then we should see kids who are sometimes born with 3 arms, to be able to live and use their arms productively, but this is the opposite. Most physical mutations even reduce fertility and increase chances of miscarriage such as Down's Syndrome.

[Unidian]

Gravity is a demonstrable fact and its specific mechanisms are still very much up for debate in physics.

[Dan Rowden]

Evolution can't be a demonstrable fact if the specific mechanisms of its processes are still up for debate!!! What an idiotic thing to say.

Um, no, it's not idiotic at all. Evolution is a demonstrable fact; even the ancient Greeks knew this. You seem to be one of those people who can only equate evolution with extant mechanical theory and therefore see it as theoretical in and of itself. That's so obviously wrong it's not funny. Most people, sadly, also have a cartoonish overview of evolution. I mean, I know plenty of otherwise "educated" people who still say idiotic things like: if we evolved from the apes, how come they still exist?

I mean, duh.

[Faust]

Evolution is a demonstrable fact; even the ancient Greeks knew this.

Ancient greeks????!!! Where did Ancient Greeks know about this? And Ancient greeks were so poor in science, this means nothing.

How is evolution a demonstrable fact if its mechanisms are still up for debate?? How can it be a DEMONSTRABLE fact when the most important process of evolution, speciation, is utterly impossible and not shown??

You seem to be one of those people who can only equate evolution with extant mechanical theory and therefore see it as theoretical in and of itself.

???? Evolution is supposed to be mechanical, what does that even mean? "See it as theoretical" what??? I'm looking at it at a purely scientific and empirical and biological way

Most people, sadly, also have a cartoonish overview of evolution. I mean, I know plenty of otherwise "educated" people who still say idiotic things like: if we evolved from the apes, how come they still exist?

no it's because you're lazy and you block out facts that don't fit your worldview, that happens ALL the time even with the smartest scientists, philosophers, historians, it's probably the most dangerous flaw of human nature. Cartoonish view? How is my view cartoonish? What an idiotic thing to say, I look at the supposed processes of evolution and it's rubbish. How about trying to refute my reasons instead of spouting empty emotional rhetoric?

[Faust]

Gravity is a demonstrable fact and its specific mechanisms are still very much up for debate in physics.

too bad we can SEE and FEEL gravity, not so for speciation

[Ataraxia]

Man,I'm so skeptical that I'm even skeptical of skepticism, but even I'll cede evolution is so.

[Shahrazad]

too bad we can SEE and FEEL gravity,

How and when can you see gravity?

[Unidian]

Ancient greeks????!!! Where did Ancient Greeks know about this? And Ancient greeks were so poor in science, this means nothing.

Um... your statements are getting so outlandishly ignorant that I'm starting to wonder if you're putting us on. The ancient Greeks invented science. They created it - namely Thales and his student Anaximander. BTW, Anaximander is most likely the ancient Greek who Dan was referring to - he deduced that man must have evolved from simpler life forms almost 25 centuries before Darwin finally established it. RTFM, as they say.

I've been trying to avoid saying it because it's very unkind, but really, your statements in this thread have added an entirely new level of irony to the title "Genius Forum."

[divine focus]

Someone, please reply to something in here:

speciation hasn't been proven at all, because it is impossible. Each species has its own limited gene pool, and can only produce its own species. Any variance or differing traits are still part of the species, so a taller human is still a human, etc... There's no dog with wings, or hairless monkeys that resemble hairless humans. So natural selection can't progress anything because all these traits still propogate the same species. Evolution would have to rely on nothing but random mutations that need to be so alien as to help propogate a different species, such as a cow with a giraffe's neck. Then, these mutations need to have successive mutations in order to bring about a larger change, such as a cow's neck becoming longer and longer. This is not only extremely rare, but physically impossible. These preliminary mutations aren't even advantageous for natural selection to work on them, nor would they necessarily always turn out properly in the new generation. If an ape is to become a human, it would have to somehow be born bipedal and start walking bipedally, and conceiving bipedal apes. If evolution has a starting point, then these preliminary changes should be seen today, as random mutations don't take millions of years to happen, because they aren't based on natural selection. We should be able to see monkeys being born bipedal, or hairless, which would then begin the process of natural selection if these traits are even advantageous, then they would be passed on. BUT, there's more problems. These apes will still mate with apes, and it's not possible to make an entirely new species while you're conceiving with the same one all the time. A hairless monkey would still be a monkey, there would be no reason for it to speciate and not be able to reproduce with monkeys anymore.

Alas we see that no physical mutation has any beneficial effects for animals or humans, nor do they turn humans into another species. If humans can evolve, then we should see kids who are sometimes born with 3 arms, to be able to live and use their arms productively, but this is the opposite. Most physical mutations even reduce fertility and increase chances of miscarriage such as Down's Syndrome.

All other replies are beside the point of his post.

[Jamesh]

But that is not the case, in truth we cannot know, empirically.

Empirical observation is ultimately just logical observation.

To me the non-existence of acasuality would be a break down in the necessity for a clearly one-sided dualistic concept to have an opposing side. While Causality = Existence and Existence = Causality, this is just the flat 2 dimensional plane of any identifiable duality, just billiard ball duality. The "causality/unity" duality logically must balance against a "non-casual/non-existence" duality - and all things are just what is in between these ultimate opposites. This is, after all, just what we see in things - a cubic metre of space is less observably existent, than a cubic metre of uranium. If you converted this uranium to the equivlent of the content of that same spacial area, then it would be zillions of times more than that spacial area.

Now, I don’t know what that opposing side is, but it could be The Totality or it could be something like "dead time".

The QRS approach the Totality as "acausality existent" . I however see the concept of the Totality as a false concept (and perhaps they do to), as I see in this idea the same limitation that is applicable to any Thing. The form of any thing must be caused, so the form of the totality also must be caused. The Thing does not actually exist, except with in the material-less domain of Form alone. The Thing itself has no causal power at all. We do think we observe "things being causes", but at all times we are observing the entire casual content of that thing being itself, and the entire content of "what has not been defined as that Thing" also being itself, dualistically. The form of the thing is coincidental, it is only what an observer is capable of observing and defining into thingness. Form is just shape (visual shape and light, sound, heat wave form shape), but it not what causes those shapes.

To me therefore the idea of The Totality is just another definition of form. It is still a useful concept though. It opens the mind to the idea of causal infinity.


I wont bother going over the dead time idea (cause I'm sure you think its rubbish - but as you can see I changed my mind anyway :)), except to say that should something that is the cause of The Totality, become non-causal WITHIN itself (Edit: or more accurate - relatively non-casual), this does not mean that it would be non-casual to that which is outside itself. Now I am not talking about things when I say this, it is the level below that - all things would not exist if they were not casual within. That some "absolute-entity" be non-casual within, and not affected by what is not within, does not mean that what is outside is not affected by this entity of non-causality. So even something acasual might still have an affect that is casual. This is why gravity will never be identifiable - it doesn't exist in the physical realm of things, yet it affects every part of the physical realm. Gravity is the proof of fundamental acasuality. Gravity is the boundary, the limiting agent of that which is causal, and I believe there is only one fundamental casual-entity - Ever expanding Time. As Time is the ultimate necessity for any Totality or any thing, there cannot be any "before time" and thus cannot be something caused. But if time was just this "uncaused entity", then nothing would form.

In order for Time to be casual, it has to do something, it cannot just be. To attach the adjective Expanding to the concept of Time, then thus logically infers that Time expands from "what it was" to "what it becomes" - there is casual transition of form and it leaves what it was, behind.

I sense Time is casually active in a pulsational manner, and this is what causes the quantum-ness that is required for anything to form, but I have yet to think of anything that would cause such casual pulsation. Nah forget that, perhaps a more reasonable scenario is that active time does not pulse, but slowly and infinitely decreases in causal intensity, and as time expands in all directions including inwards, then this expansion pushes its past self inwards towards the centre of the totality.

When things are less directly affected by that which surrounds them, they tend to form spheres, like planets and stars and atoms or spiral forms like galaxies (and generally a galaxy is just a thing in the earlier part of the action of forming a black hole sphere - it depends on what is close by, just as we beings are not spherical because of a myriad of competing casual balances in our direct vicinity). The appearance of time pulsation might be just the constant change of form - from a 2 dimensional-like spiral form to a spherical 3 dimensional form, then on some other scale back to the 2 dimensional-like spiral form. Things in Wave form may therefore actually be closer to 2 dimensional spiral forms, while atomic structures are spherical. Just as if some alien god were to flatten the earth into a near flat 2 dimension plane, then it would take up a great deal more spatial area - just as light and radiation do. Further when something like light or radiation strikes things however it can be absorbed by the content of that thing and become a three dimensional atomic entity - if things in wave form did not do this then they could have no affect on anything.

Perhaps this would mean that as time expands, it expands 3 dimensionally (holistically), but every bit of expansion relative to what it expanded from, creates a 2 dimensional wave form, which in it being relative to all that is "past" then over more time results in that wave form changing its form, by casual decay, from a singular form of "existence-wave", into an infinite spectrum of wave forms, thus allowing dualistic opposition, which in turn by evolutionary unity, can eventually evolve into pulsing "mostly-spherical shaped" string forms, and so on up the atomic line all the way to black holes and beyond. (ie Applying this astromonically, then Pulsars become spherical shapes in the (relatively rapid) action of changing into a wave form. The missing 95% of the universe Dark Energy/Matter becomes Time in it's "closer-to-newly-expanded" form, unobservable before it evolves into wave forms).

If anyone can understand what I'm saying here (and good ol' Sapius generally does) then I would imagine, after a refinement of the wording, this sort of explanation could be classed as "empirical truth about the nature of reality, gained by logic".

[divine focus]

Solely intellectually?

Are you seriously going to contend that intellectualising is not experiencing?

Obviously, application is required but what direction is that application going to take?

It's an all too obvious point you're making, as is mine.

I'm not so sure. The point I'm trying to make is not a very easy one to make. Intellectualizing is of course an experience; it is only not one conducive to the growth that we are speaking of. The application of practices, namely trusting of direction and acceptance of beliefs, requires an end to intellectualizing as a method of knowledge. These practices go by many different names within many different cultures and philosophical systems, but they always refer to these two core actions of trusting and accepting of oneself.

The application is complicated by the intertwining natures of the two actions of trust and acceptance and their opposites, control based on fear and judgment based in beliefs. In a sense, within functioning, trust takes the place of judgment and acceptance takes the place of control. Normally, you are guided by your judgment and control is the implementor, so to speak. As you apply the trust of direction and the acceptance of beliefs, direction becomes your guide and you act through acceptance. It becomes simple in effect but it's hard at first to become clear as to the difference between direction and judgment, although control and acceptance are easy to tell apart. Acceptance, though, may be harder to implement than trust of direction. In essence, you can be simultaneously trusting and judging, but not trusting and controlling at the same level. In the same vein, you can be simultaneously accepting and controlling, but not accepting of and judging the same beliefs.

If this is confusing, you can see why the committed application of trust and acceptance is so difficult. In truth, it need not be this complicated within anyone's perception, although I enjoy "deconstructing" the experience. This deconstruction is not the same as what you call intellectualizing--you would not call it intellectualizing, as that would not be accurate.

[Dave Toast]

But this doesn't seem, to me at least,the 'conventional interpetation' held by QM scientists-for example I don't think Victor would say that.

Well, if we look back at the fairly recent thread 'Quantum Mechanics and Randomness' and the debate on that subject, we'll find this exchange:

"DQ: Are you saying that the random quantum event produced within a given distribution is akin to the random showing of a 6 produced within the rolling of a dice? In other words, the two processes are fully causal, while the two results are random?

VD: Indeed. The probabilistic distribution itself, as a whole, is deterministic, is a result of specific causal processes, and is predictable. What is random is each specific observation result -- just as the die roll is caused, the distribution of die rolls is known and predictable, yet each specific roll is [quasi-]random.

DQ: Would you say, then, that the randomness in each case is not a property of the system itself, but a function of our inability to predict the outcome? In the case of the dice, the result of 6 is causally created by the rolling the dice, while our inability to predict its outcome beforehand makes it appear as though it is random."

Whilst Vic took pleasure in answering and exploding every ill-conceived thought on quantum randomness in this thread, there was no answer whatsoever forthcoming to this question.

Wiki:Copenhagen interpretation

Acceptance among physicists
According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[7]

later

Crticisms
Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements.

Ataraxia: Presumably you're in the latter group.

I suppose so, the part of the latter group that goes with the second 'criticism' anyway. But I wouldn't say it's a criticism, just a recognition of limitations and dealing with them as best we can, very well as it turns out. Copenhagen has its place and it is behind some of the best verified theories in physics - there has never been a single observation that invalidates it. It is the overarching paradigm amongst physicists because it works, extremely well. It is, however, also the overarching paradigm amongst physicists that, whilst accurately reflecting the nature of reality, QM is necessarily incomplete.

[Dave Toast]

I'm battling to make sense of what you're saying here. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. "Yes, particles can just pop into existence" but on the other hand, "No, this doesn't support acausality". What I want to know is why this doesn't support acausality.

Because we can't say whether or not they really 'just pop into existence', we can't even say whether they really exist as we can't empirically verify them, that's why they're called virtual. They are a product of the theory, not observation. They arise as the explanation of causes we cannot observe directly, only infer from what we can observe directly.

The term 'just pop into existence' is utilised in trying to explain these things in layman's terms. But it's misleading. More accurately, they appear to just pop into existence but we simply cannot tell whether that is the case or not because that 'just popping' may or may not have a causal nature behind it, a nature we will never be able to observe.

Here's a good way to think about it. When we look at the empirical macro world, it would seem that reality is analogue in nature - there is always more and more detail to be found in that nothing is discrete. But when we pursue that detail down to the level of quanta, suddenly empirical reality becomes seemingly digital - quantized - of a discrete nature. All we can observe are 1s and 0s and we have therefore reached the limits of delineating causes beyond that point. When a 1 appears, for all intents and purposes it appears as though it's just popped into existence. But that apparition is really just a consequence of our inablility to delineate the processes producing 1s and 0s.

'Just popping into existence' is just a metaphor, one subject to perversion by quantum mystics and naysayers.

As far as I understand things, when particles just pop into existence, we can't say that there's any particular reason behind such an event beyond it being a random occurrence within a probability distribution.

That's not a reason for the event though, its a description of the event.

This to me sounds like a pretty good description of an acausal process. Then again, I haven't studied this topic all that much and you might be trying to say that after all, there are causal processes behind the randomness. Is that what you're saying?

The main point I was making, the scientific one, is that contrary to what is often bandied about, we cannot tell whether the processes beyond the level of the Planck scale are causal or not. There is no evidence for acausailty, or indeed for causality.

If we then want to speculate philosophically as to whether these processes might be causal or acausal, the facts that everything we encounter in the mind and in the empirical world is consistent with causality, and that measurables are indeed highly predictable, according to the probablility distribution; it would seem there is no reason whatsoever to posit acausal processes.

[brokenhead]

The main point I was making, the scientific one, is that contrary to what is often bandied about, we cannot tell whether the processes beyond the level of the Planck scale are causal or not. There is no evidence for acausailty, or indeed for causality.

This is an extremely important point, though. Everything else you study yields the necessity of causality. If it is an event in history, you can knock yourself out by conjecturing things that led up to it. You can never, of course, know all the causes of any event on a macroscopic scale, but you always know that an event has causes. But when you try to understand QM, it is as if you have become suddenly dyslexic. The Copenhagen view is maybe the most widely accepted, but that is because, IMO it asserts the least. It doesn't seem to me to make a case for or against causality. When you think of cause and effect, you think of time moving in one direction. But if you follow a simple Feynman diagram of the history of a particle event, you can see that it is possible for a particle to travel backwards in time.

[divine focus]

At its core, reality is an action. It is a unified action infinite in scope. This word of infinite is not easily comprehended, or even comprehensible in intellectual terms. It itself is uncaused, and in this, nothing within this infinite action is actually caused. This action is not a thing or entity or being; there is no containment of it. We within our physical preception naturally consider ourselves beings, and so relate to all expressions of this infinite action as things or entities or other beings. In obseving the mechanics of our physical reality, we perceive things that are isolated from each other in their physical structure but interact within definite rules and systems. The reason we cannot perceive more deeply within this framework is that the actual things are not objects. They are inherent "parts" of the unified action, in that all of this action is expressed within each individual, perceived thing.

The integration of relativity and quantum mechanics is actually a subjective action. Of course, it may be expressed objectively, with the realization that it will never be a completely accurate representation.

[Ataraxia]

DQ: Would you say, then, that the randomness in each case is not a property of the system itself, but a function of our inability to predict the outcome? In the case of the dice, the result of 6 is causally created by the rolling the dice, while our inability to predict its outcome beforehand makes it appear as though it is random."[/color]

Whilst Vic took pleasure in answering and exploding every ill-conceived thought on quantum randomness in this thread, there was no answer whatsoever forthcoming to this question.

I remember that thread.David is steering Victor towards-and what I'm going to submit as my first QSR aphroism - the "argument from conditionality" via semantics.It's what always happens when this subject arises AFAICT.

He is trying to get Victor to say INdeterminency,if he does then a semantic argument can ensue.However later in thread somewhere Victor says it's not indeterminate,"I purposefully use the term non-determinent."

You're right, Victor doesn't answer it there but I'm fairly confident if he was here now he would say dice randomness and qauntum randomness are differnt.The dice's outcome determinant,the QM outcome not.This would be in line with the 'popular' view at the moment of the Copenhagen interpretation and why it is criticized by "many philosophers" per the wiki quote,it points to non-determinency.

... whilst accurately reflecting the nature of reality, QM is necessarily incomplete.

Yes,look I'm still a determinist too.Your last bit here is what I hang my hat on.