GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:Firstly, I'd like to know exactly what it is about a dice throw that is "predictable" - and preferably also an example of how one can perfectly predict future events, instead of just guessing what they might be. Because if all you mean by "predictable" that we can guess what might happen in the future, then you aren't saying anything.

Throwing a die is an example of a physical act that corresponds so closely to a mathematical model that we can take a die throw as essentially being a mathematical event. Normally you would add in a rule to cover the case of something unusual or ambiguous happening, discarding that particular throw and generating another, so that a throw of a die is guaranteed to produce a result in a limited sample space. For example, rolling a six-sided die will result in one of the elements of the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}.

Throwing a die generates a sample from a finite group of integers (the "outcome space"), with a probability associated with each possible result such that the sum of the probabilities equals one. Based on the outcome of such samples, we might come to a conclusion about the die. For instance, if you roll a six-sided die ten times and come up with a six ten times, you can conclude that it is unlikely that the die is fair ("fair" meaning that there is an equal probability of each outcome in the sample space).

That you can not perfectly predict the outcome of a particular roll of the die is so obvious that is painful to mention it. But you can make statements about what you expect to happen, especially if you roll the die a large number of times. And that is often very useful.

I don't know why you are so down on "guessing." The whole point of all this is to be able to make very informed guesses, reflecting as much of the available information as possible. (And of course there are much more interesting cases than rolling a die.)

Next week: Bayes' theorem.

For me, something is only truly random if you break something down, and get to a point where there is no cause.

Break the die throw down in reverse...


Lands on a number where inertia fails to make it roll anymore.

Inertia keeps the die tumbling.

Particles punch the die in many directions.

Gravity allows the die to fall in an arc.

Hand shakes the die, and lets go.

Brain patterns move the hand, wrist, elbow, arm, and shoulder.. some of the body.

Electrons fire into channels.

A message is sent to electrons.

Sentience is the cause.

And the events are broken down to what comes before sentience. Well, It would be silly if something told us what to do. So I doubt anything comes before sentience. So without cause, we have true randomness.

If you had a die throwing machine, then it would not be random, because it wouldn't break down far enough. There would be something before the first movement of the machine.. ie sentience. Unless you made the machine break down to sentience in the first place.

vicdan wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: And secondly, I'd like to know exactly what it is that is "uncaused". Saying that something is "uncaused" just because it appears random, or may even be random, is not an argument.

Fuck you. First you hang this 'indeterminism' shit on me, now you go for 'uncaused'. You guys are the ones who jumped from non-determinism to causation.

Ah, excuse me, Victor, just a few posts back, you wrote:

Like I said, the event is caused. Nonetheless, it seems to have an uncaused aspect, the random outcome within the probabilistic distribution.

So it is actually you who keeps introducing the "uncaused" term into the discussion. If you didn't, then none of this discussion would be taking place.

This is the problem I am having with you. Despite the fact that you create the appearance of being erudite, you keep changing your tune on what the philosophical implications of QM might mean. I find this to be a common problem among scientists in regards to this issue.

Victor: Like I said, the event is caused. Nonetheless, it seems to have an uncaused aspect, the random outcome within the probabilistic distribution.

DQ: It just happens?

Victor: Yes, the quantum die coming up 6 rather than another number 'just happens', it seems. The quantum decoherence is caused, the probabilistic distribution result is caused, but there is nothing causing one rather than another result -- it happens randomly, as far as we can tell. And there is nothing you can do to prove the logical impossibility of this.

Don't you find this deeply unsatisfying?

To illustrate, let us imagine that scientists come up with a mathematical system that successfully predicts, to a startling degree, various facets of human behaviour. Simply by feeding in the initial conditions and crunching the numbers they can predict with great accuracy how a particular person will behave in a given situation. And let us suppose that such a system relies on the premise that human behaviour arises uncaused. The prompt to behave in a particular way just materializes in the mind without any cause at all.

Now, on the one hand, we can say that the predictive power of the system is impressive and indicates that it contains some genuine substance. But on the other, the premise that it relies upon surely indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. While the theory is useful because it works, in no way could it considered the end of the story. There is still something very dodgy about it.

As with QM, it is a question of how much weight do we place on the predictive power of the mathematical system, as opposed to a fundamental principle like causality. It should be noted that science has traditionally given full weight to the principle of causality throughout the course of its history. Its very impulse has always been to investigate the causes of things. That it is now suddenly putting itself at loggerheads with one of its own defining principles, for the sake of another of its defining principles, is very interesting to me. Instead of accepting that the clash of these two principles as evidence that the theory is not quite right, it has decided to abandon one of the principles altogether, at least within the quantum realm.

The question then becomes, can QM be truly considered a scientific theory? On the one hand, it makes falsifiable predictions and consistently passes each empirical test, so that gives it grounds for being considered a scientific theory. But on the other, in abandoning the principle of causality, it steps outside the bounds of a scientific theory to some degree. In no other field of science would the abandoning of causality be tolerated. Any attempt to do so would strenuously be regarded as anti-scientific. Imagine the uproar and ridicule if biologists started saying that the things they are studying "just happen". And yet somehow, it has become acceptable in quantum theory.

-

David Quinn wrote:So it is actually you who keeps introducing the "uncaused" term into the discussion.

Dude, in the very first post in this thread, i replied ot the following statement of yours:

Random doesn't mean uncaused.

You guys are the ones introducing causation into the discussion, because you have this idiotic argument that everything has a cause, and you feel non-determinism assaults it.

This is the problem I am having with you. Despite the fact that you create the appearance of being erudite, you keep changing your tune on what the philosophical implications of QM might mean. I find this to be a common problem among scientists in regards to this issue.

You are as dumb as you are dishonest, dude.

victor wrote:Yes, the quantum die coming up 6 rather than another number 'just happens', it seems. The quantum decoherence is caused, the probabilistic distribution result is caused, but there is nothing causing one rather than another result -- it happens randomly, as far as we can tell. And there is nothing you can do to prove the logical impossibility of this.

Don't you find this deeply unsatisfying?

Why do you care? I don't decide what views to accept based on whether they are satisfying. Unlike you apparently, it's not about whether a given proposition pleases me, but whether it is, as best as i can determine, true; i.e. whether it exhibits predictive power.

Now, on the one hand, we can say that the predictive power of the system is impressive and indicates that it contains some genuine substance. But on the other, the premise that it relies upon surely indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. While the theory is useful because it works, in no way could it considered the end of the story. There is still something very dodgy about it.

that's because human behavior is caused, and by considering its causes, we can make more accurate predictions than your hypothetical system could. Duh. You are cheating by introducing a logical contradiction.

Contrawise, we don't know that quantum behavior is deterministic, and so the probabilistic prediction is by far -- by very far -- the best predictive model we have.

We would find the 'randomness' model of human behavior deeply unsatisfying because human behavior isn't random.

As with QM, it is a question of how much weight do we place on the predictive power of the mathematical system, as opposed to a fundamental principle like causality.

2+2=5 for exceptionally large value of 2, did i tell you that?..

dude, your thinking is incredibly, unbelievably sloppy.

The question then becomes, can QM be truly considered a scientific theory? On the one hand, it makes falsifiable predictions and consistently passes each empirical test, so that gives it grounds for being considered a scientific theory.

That is the most important feature of scientific theory. in fact, one could go so far as to say that this is the definitive feature of scientific theories -- predictive power is what defines scientific theories, and distinguishes them from all other conceptualizations.

But on the other, in abandoning the principle of causality, it steps outside the bounds of a scientific theory to some degree.

Only if you are an idiot like yourself (oops! you are!) who assumes that his empty navel-gazing is actually relevant to reality.

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:So it is actually you who keeps introducing the "uncaused" term into the discussion.

Dude, in the very first post in this thread, i replied ot the following statement of yours:

Random doesn't mean uncaused.

How does this square with what you also wrote on the first page of this thread:

As best as we can determine, quantum events are truly random. We know from observed evidence that they cannot be explained as non-random involved any local hidden variables. meaning, any hypothesis trying to conceive of quantum events as determinsitic, relying on local hidden variables, is automatically proven false by empirical evidence before it's even formulated.

I agree that random doesn't mean uncaused. But you seem to be concluding that because quantum events seem random, because there are no algorithms currently available to predict them, it is proof that these events, or certain aspects of them, occur without cause.

The elimination of the concept of hidden variables producing these events changes them from being merely random events to uncaused events.

DQ: Now, on the one hand, we can say that the predictive power of the system is impressive and indicates that it contains some genuine substance. But on the other, the premise that it relies upon surely indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. While the theory is useful because it works, in no way could it considered the end of the story. There is still something very dodgy about it.

Victor: that's because human behavior is caused, and by considering its causes, we can make more accurate predictions than your hypothetical system could. Duh. You are cheating by introducing a logical contradiction.

That's not really true. Even if we had a thorough understanding of a person's psychology, neurology, physiology, etc, we still wouldn't be able to predict with any real certainty how he will behave in a particular situation, or what thoughts he will think. From our perspective, his reactions will be random. We can formulate a range of possible reactions, but the one that actually materializes will, for all intents and purposes, be random.

For example, I can predict that your next post to me will be filled with abuse and insults, but until I actually see it I won't know for sure. It will always be a guess on my part.

So if a mathematical system were devised that could make more accurate predictions of human behaviour, but only by asserting the premise that all human behaviour is uncaused, then that would create a dilemma. We would either have to abandon the idea that our thoughts are caused by the brain, nervous system, etc, or else treat the mathematical system with a large grain of salt.

We would find the 'randomness' model of human behavior deeply unsatisfying because human behavior isn't random.

Even though the predictive power of the mathematical system would suggest that human behaviour is uncaused?

DQ: The question then becomes, can QM be truly considered a scientific theory? On the one hand, it makes falsifiable predictions and consistently passes each empirical test, so that gives it grounds for being considered a scientific theory.

Victor: That is the most important feature of scientific theory. in fact, one could go so far as to say that this is the definitive feature of scientific theories -- predictive power is what defines scientific theories, and distinguishes them from all other conceptualizations.

And yet science would never have got off the ground and flourished through the ages if everyone simply accepted the notion that things just happened. The very attempt to create controlled conditions in the laboratory, or in the particle accelerator, is predicated on the idea that causality is ruling there. There is no question that, historically, causality has been one of defining principles of science.

-

vicdan wrote:that's because human behavior is caused, and by considering its causes, we can make more accurate predictions than your hypothetical system could. Duh. You are cheating by introducing a logical contradiction.

Now that is a ridiculous statement. Even with a probabilistic model of the fundamental particles we can predict more about their behavior than the behavior of a human. In fact physics is the most successful science precisely because it deals with dead and memoryless systems of low complexity such as fundamental particles.

BTW I was wondering that what is the basis for the belief that all fundamental particles are identical. For example we name a class of similar creatures cats, but no two cats are identical. Similarly does it not stand to reason that no two fundamental particles be alike, and each is unique. That would explain for example why one atom decays earlier than another.

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Random doesn't mean uncaused. It simply refers to causal processes that we find difficult to model or predict.

Erm, how about NO?

'Random' means something that cannot be predicted. The processes difficult to model or predict are called pseudo-random, they are well understood, and they have nothing to do with real randomness. Real randomness comes from quantum non-determinism. We now know that the quantum non-determinism cannot be pseudo-randomness caused by the local hidden variables, as per Bell's theorem.

Basically, the facts seem to be that genuine randomness exists.

One day Victor might wake up early morning in cold sweat and realize with a great shock that Quinn actually understood a couple of things better than him - even when phrased somewhat unusually, and that he was treated with incredible patience and some irony - which all flew over his head.

Anyway, "quantum non-determinism" doesn't exist. The uncertainty principle, the collapsing wave function, the randomness are all part of a theory, an interpretation which is in itself indeterministic. The math itself has no opinion about its own randomness and probability. That's where the "shut up and calculate" came from . Because to propose randomness as some magical faery dust that somehow makes the quantum world go round is just as tricky as suggesting non-local variables or many worlds. Probability yes, but that's a calculation, not an explanation of any kind.

Speaking of many worlds interpretation: this is a great example how randomness becomes fully deterministic and predictable while still not predictable from a single-world point of view. Indeed the causal process of randomness would become accurately modeled with this theory, if it would pan out.

David Deutsch does a lot of work in this direction. Here's a recent article Parallel universes make quantum sense

Dismissed by the scientific establishment as ridiculous for decades,
the many-worlds scenario may at last come in from the cold thanks to
Deutsch's work.

The biggest criticism levelled at many worlds was that it seemed to
make a puzzle about the outcomes of quantum experiments even worse.
Physicists can predict the probability of getting a certain outcome
from a quantum experiment from the square of its wave function,
according to the Born rule. Nobody can explain why this rule works, it
simply fits with experimental observations. The problem was there
seemed to be no place for the Born rule in the multiverse. In fact,
there didn't seem to be any space for any probabilities at all, says
Deutsch.
"You toss a coin, but what does it mean to say that the probability of
it coming up heads is 50 per cent?" Deutsch asks. "According to
Everett, both outcomes must happen."

In the mid-1990s, Deutsch set out to put the uncertainty we see in
quantum mechanical experiments back into the many-worlds scenario.
Now, with additional work by Simon Saunders and David Wallace, also at
Oxford, he believes they have succeeded. The trick is to examine a
quantum experiment while excluding probability theory and accepting
the many-worlds interpretation.

The multiverse has a branching structure, created as the universe
splits into parallel versions of itself. The thickness of the branches
can be calculated solely using deterministic equations, getting around
the uncertainties usually associated with quantum physics. What the
Oxford gang found is that the branching structure exactly reproduces
the peculiar probabilities predicted by the Born rule. The branching
also gives the illusion of probabilistic outcomes to measurements.

DHodges wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Firstly, I'd like to know exactly what it is about a dice throw that is "predictable" - and preferably also an example of how one can perfectly predict future events, instead of just guessing what they might be. Because if all you mean by "predictable" that we can guess what might happen in the future, then you aren't saying anything.

Throwing a die is an example of a physical act that corresponds so closely to a mathematical model that we can take a die throw as essentially being a mathematical event.

Let's examine whether it is necessarily true that throwing a die corresponds closely to a mathematical model.

Imagine that from this moment forth, whenever you throw a die, it simply disappears. Or, whenever you throw the die, it changes into a five-sided die. Or something completely different might happen each time you threw a die.

The mathematical model didn't predict this at all, and the observed results certainly don't correspond closely with the mathematical model.

We might change the model, but as soon as we do, the behaviour of the dice might change again. So in this case the model is always vastly different from the actual behaviour of dice. As soon as you change the model to say that dice behave in an unpredictable way, they might start being predictable again.

So the mathematical model is at best only a guess of what might happen in the future. It is a "prediction", but only in the sense of being, essentially, wild speculation. It would be like me betting everything I have on a horse to win a particular race, not knowing that the horse was destined to keel over dead half way around the first bend.

you can make statements about what you expect to happen

Yes, but while you think it is painfully obvious that we can't make perfect predictions about individual events, I think it is painfully obvious that we can make guesses, which may turn out to be completely wrong, about large numbers of them. [see next]

I don't know why you are so down on "guessing."

Guessing is fine, but Victor was trying to say that we can predict (ie, guess) in the macro world, but not in the quantum world.

But in fact we can guess in the quantum world as well. Exactly the same kind of predictions are possible there too. Namely, we can make predictions (guesses) based on past experiences. There is essentially no difference in this respect between the macro world and the quantum world.

All the stuff about "local hidden variables", and the difference between local and non-local variables, is itself a guess. And Victor is only guessing that there are things that are uncaused - and those guesses are uncalled for, and unsupported.

David,

As with QM, it is a question of how much weight do we place on the predictive power of the mathematical system, as opposed to a fundamental principle like causality. It should be noted that science has traditionally given full weight to the principle of causality throughout the course of its history. Its very impulse has always been to investigate the causes of things. That it is now suddenly putting itself at loggerheads with one of its own defining principles, for the sake of another of its defining principles, is very interesting to me. Instead of accepting that the clash of these two principles as evidence that the theory is not quite right, it has decided to abandon one of the principles altogether, at least within the quantum realm.

I disagree here. Science has never been great at unveiling the cause of things. It's been good at unveiling how things work, but it is unable to tell us causes. Expecting it to do so can only lead a person to disappointment.

Do you know what causes the law of gravity? They never taught me that in school, though they did teach me what the law was and its consequences.

Many years ago I was a freshman in college and had a physics professor that refused to answer "why" questions. His explanation was that any "why" that could not be translated into a "what" or a "how" was really a question of the metaphysical order, and was outside the scope of his class and of science.

This professor helped me realize that, fun and powerful as science was as a tool for knowing the world, it had its limits, and if I really wanted to know the story of causality, I was going to have to look elsewhere.

-

You learned the wrong lesson. if what you really look for is causalityoutside 'what' and 'how', then you need your brain examined.

The lesson you should have learned is not that there are other sources of knowledge which can answer questions science cannot, but that you were asking ill-formed questions.

Some questions may not be worth asking for you, but that does not mean that the rest of us won't ask them.

Shahrazad wrote:David,

As with QM, it is a question of how much weight do we place on the predictive power of the mathematical system, as opposed to a fundamental principle like causality. It should be noted that science has traditionally given full weight to the principle of causality throughout the course of its history. Its very impulse has always been to investigate the causes of things. That it is now suddenly putting itself at loggerheads with one of its own defining principles, for the sake of another of its defining principles, is very interesting to me. Instead of accepting that the clash of these two principles as evidence that the theory is not quite right, it has decided to abandon one of the principles altogether, at least within the quantum realm.

I disagree here. Science has never been great at unveiling the cause of things. It's been good at unveiling how things work, but it is unable to tell us causes. Expecting it to do so can only lead a person to disappointment.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that scientists have always been motivated to investigate causes. Medical research is an obvious example, but it cuts across all disciplines of science. Even when scientists strictly confine themselves to statistical research, they are still tacitly affirming causality. This is because without causality generating regularities in Nature there would be nothing to research in the first place. Nature would just be a homogenized sea of randomness.

Do you know what causes the law of gravity? They never taught me that in school, though they did teach me what the law was and its consequences.

According to Einstein, the curvature of space.

-

According to Einstein, the curvature of space.

And what causes that? I'm going to keep asking this question until you run out of answers, or at the very least, you'll have to give an unscientific answer.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that scientists have always been motivated to investigate causes.

And that does not change the fact that they know science can only take them so far.

Victor wrote:now you go for 'uncaused'.

Here's a few quotes, definitely yours, from the last few days - I couldn't be bothered going any further back:

The event is caused, but the specific outcome doesn't seem to be. (16th Nov)

it seems to have an uncaused aspect (16th Nov)

a thing may be caused, yet might have random aspects which are not caused nor determined by anything. (15th Nov)

The above quotes indicate that you think that it is a least possible, and probably very likely, that there is something that is entirely uncaused - and this is what we are taking issue with.

Exactly why something that is unpredictable seems uncaused to you, is a mystery to me.

In reference to Victor,

Kevin Solway wrote:Exactly why something that is unpredictable seems uncaused to you, is a mystery to me.

Because he's stuck in an extremely restricted academic mind-set. He has tunnel vision, the big picture completely escapes him, or like I said before, he's about as conscious as my 16 year old sister.

David Quinn wrote:That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that scientists have always been motivated to investigate causes. Medical research is an obvious example, but it cuts across all disciplines of science. Even when scientists strictly confine themselves to statistical research, they are still tacitly affirming causality. This is because without causality generating regularities in Nature there would be nothing to research in the first place. Nature would just be a homogenized sea of randomness.

Science might better be described as dealing with correlation rather than causality. That applies both to the relationships between specific phenomena(which are often described in terms of cause and effect) and also the relationship between the scientific algorithms/theories themselves and the observations they are derived from and predict. But you know this, you've even written about these Hume-type points in your book.

"Exactly why something that is unpredictable, seems uncaused to you, is a mystery to me."

Ok, I have new favorite quote. :-)

Shahrazad wrote:

According to Einstein, the curvature of space.

And what causes that? I'm going to keep asking this question until you run out of answers, or at the very least, you'll have to give an unscientific answer.

Okay, you've got me.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Some questions may not be worth asking for you, but that does not mean that the rest of us won't ask them.

Indeed. How many angels can dance on a head of a pin? Inquiring minds want to know, and them scientists are just dismissing such questions!

Shahrazad wrote:And what causes that? I'm going to keep asking this question until you run out of answers, or at the very least, you'll have to give an unscientific answer.

Meaning, you are looking for the ultimate answer -- you are looking for the answer that stops all questions. You are looking for a religious answer. You aren't looking for an answer that is correct, meaningful, or verifiable. You are looking for an answer that purports to be Absolute Truth. You want to be deceived.

Kevin Solway wrote:The above quotes indicate that you think that it is a least possible, and probably very likely, that there is something that is entirely uncaused - and this is what we are taking issue with.

The above indicates that I was trying to speak your language.

Exactly why something that is unpredictable seems uncaused to you, is a mystery to me.

Because you are an idiot who can't read. I have already gone over why it's intellectually dishonest to suppose that there are hidden variables determining the specific outcome of a quantum event, and why the honest look at QM strongly suggests that there are no hidden variables determining which outcome we observe.

You can call that 'uncaused', but when you kids use the term, you use it in your own delusional sense.

Kevin Solway wrote:Imagine that from this moment forth, whenever you throw a die, it simply disappears. Or, whenever you throw the die, it changes into a five-sided die. Or something completely different might happen each time you threw a die.

I can't tell any more if you think you are making a serious point.

You can imagine that stuff happening, but, when you go and throw a die, it doesn't.

[Sorry Dave, I mangled this post a bit by accident - KS]

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:David,

As with QM, it is a question of how much weight do we place on the predictive power of the mathematical system, as opposed to a fundamental principle like causality. It should be noted that science has traditionally given full weight to the principle of causality throughout the course of its history. Its very impulse has always been to investigate the causes of things. That it is now suddenly putting itself at loggerheads with one of its own defining principles, for the sake of another of its defining principles, is very interesting to me. Instead of accepting that the clash of these two principles as evidence that the theory is not quite right, it has decided to abandon one of the principles altogether, at least within the quantum realm.

I disagree here. Science has never been great at unveiling the cause of things. It's been good at unveiling how things work, but it is unable to tell us causes. Expecting it to do so can only lead a person to disappointment.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that scientists have always been motivated to investigate causes. Medical research is an obvious example, but it cuts across all disciplines of science. Even when scientists strictly confine themselves to statistical research, they are still tacitly affirming causality. This is because without causality generating regularities in Nature there would be nothing to research in the first place. Nature would just be a homogenized sea of randomness.

Do you know what causes the law of gravity? They never taught me that in school, though they did teach me what the law was and its consequences.

According to Einstein, the curvature of space.

-

And according to me it's the aether just moving particles the same as usual. Objects are a powersource where aether gets its strength. So larger objects give the aether more strength.

DHodges wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Imagine that from this moment forth, whenever you throw a die, it simply disappears. Or, whenever you throw the die, it changes into a five-sided die. Or something completely different might happen each time you threw a die.

I can't tell any more if you think you are making a serious point

It is an absolutely serious point, because it concerns the inherent unpredictability of all (empirical) things.

Yes, you can imagine that stuff happening, but, when you go and throw a die, it doesn't.

That is only a blind guess on your part. We really are, truly, blind to the future.

Once you throw a die and look at the result, it is then a past result. And past results don't tell us anything about the future, other than how you might want to place your bets on what could well be destined to be a losing horse.

I agree. You can't use just imagination as a model of reality, you have to back it up with historic information, but are allowed to have a new interpretation of this information.

Nick Treklis wrote:Because he's stuck in an extremely restricted academic mind-set. He has tunnel vision, the big picture completely escapes him, or like I said before, he's about as conscious as my 16 year old sister.

hahaha. Whatever you need to tell yourself to not feel like a fucking idiot, huh?

You know, in addition to not being 'conscious', I am also not saved, lacking good karma, and an all-around infidel.

Now go back to yapping a counterpoint to your priests' lame attempts to defend their faith.