tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post2205937528532642776..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Causality and Quantum Mechanics: a Cosmological Kalamity (Part 2 of 2)Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6178553000490802312017-05-24T09:34:50.644-07:002017-05-24T09:34:50.644-07:00@Publius
Yes.
I've been reading A Study of H...@Publius<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />I've been reading <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Study-Hebrew-Thought-Claude-Tresmontant/dp/B0007DL5V8" rel="nofollow">A Study of Hebrew Thought</a> and Claude Tresmontant asks in the beginning, "How can anything be added to what is?" The Greeks thought that <i>newness</i> was necessarily <i>fragmentation</i> and <i>decay</i>. The goal was to Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-39192492450865697112017-05-23T23:18:17.012-07:002017-05-23T23:18:17.012-07:00@Luke
Creative language -- this seems related to ...@Luke <br />Creative language -- this seems related to the older philosophical question, "where do ideas come from?"Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-41966620482397613802017-05-20T12:46:14.523-07:002017-05-20T12:46:14.523-07:00> The predictions are generally numerical appro...> The predictions are generally numerical approximations, but the approximations are generally better than the error bars on the physical measurements. Why do you think that matters?<br /><br />Are you aware of the incredible computational costs to actually model using the fundamental equations themselves?<br /><br />> Sure: Dear Mr. Chomsky, in your address to the vatican in January 2014 Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89908409231261867942017-05-20T12:19:23.193-07:002017-05-20T12:19:23.193-07:00> For example: whenever some fundamental equat...> For example: whenever some fundamental equation of physics is tested empirically, is that equation tested directly or are the computational costs too high to do use anything other than an approximation?<br /><br />The predictions are generally numerical approximations, but the approximations are generally better than the error bars on the physical measurements. Why do you think that Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-74765598118648247602017-05-20T10:17:02.674-07:002017-05-20T10:17:02.674-07:00It is going to take me some time to get used to yo...It is going to take me some time to get used to your extrapolation out to 100 years in the future with <i>current</i> ways of thinking. Perhaps we could tease out just how this works in person at some point. For example: whenever some fundamental equation of physics is tested empirically, is that equation tested <i>directly</i> or are the computational costs too high to do use anything other thanLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36827902084546520032017-05-19T23:37:11.954-07:002017-05-19T23:37:11.954-07:00> You've presupposed that all causation is ...> You've presupposed that all causation is on the atomic scale<br /><br />No, I have not presupposed it. There is overwhelming evidence that this is true. Physics leads to chemistry. Chemistry leads to biology. Biology leads to brains. Brains lead to all manner of interesting complexity. But nowhere do I see any evidence that there is anything going on that cannot be accounted for byRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-42624511738725504202017-05-19T13:52:27.471-07:002017-05-19T13:52:27.471-07:00@Ron 3/3
> This is a red herring. Lagrange poi...@Ron 3/3<br /><br />> This is a red herring. Lagrange points are not counterexamples to the laws of physics, they are *consequences* of (and hence completely compatible with) the laws of physics.<br /><br />Ron, did I state or entail that Lagrangian points are counterexamples to the laws of physics? If you look at precisely what I said, you will see that I did no such thing. Instead, what I Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-50829354302039536292017-05-19T13:52:13.574-07:002017-05-19T13:52:13.574-07:00@Ron 2/3
> No one who wrote before 1936 can be...@Ron 2/3<br /><br />> No one who wrote before 1936 can be taken seriously on this matter. The question is not a metaphysical one any more since Turing discovered universal computation. Either our brains are Turing machines, or they are not. If they are not, then there should be *evidence* that they are not, and that too would be a major breakthrough.<br /><br />Noam Chomsky gave that lecture Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-70962862070519142242017-05-19T13:51:55.927-07:002017-05-19T13:51:55.927-07:00@Ron 1/3
> Quite simply: evidence. (Could you ...@Ron 1/3<br /><br />> Quite simply: evidence. (Could you not have predicted that answer?) All over the world physicists are working feverishly to devise an experiment that will show an atom not behaving in accordance with the currently known laws of physics. They are doing this because such an experiment would be the most significant progress in physics in decades. So far they have failed <a Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-14686946177839019452017-05-19T11:05:55.631-07:002017-05-19T11:05:55.631-07:00> Ron: All of these things are subservient to p...> Ron: All of these things are subservient to physics because they study the behavior o things that are made of atoms, and atoms behave according to physics.<br /><br />> Luke: I've thought long and hard about this, and I don't understand why you are so confident that this is the case.<br /><br />Quite simply: evidence. (Could you not have predicted that answer?) All over the Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-16831133967028809292017-05-18T22:46:16.488-07:002017-05-18T22:46:16.488-07:00> Publius: What about the other sciences? Could...> <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/03/causality-and-quantum-mechanics_20.html?showComment=1490898413203#c991211777226880235" rel="nofollow">Publius</a>: What about the other sciences? Could archaeology prove the existence of God? How about sociology? Psychology? Biochemistry? Geology? Linguistics?<br /><br />> <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/03/Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-63937008870116794082017-04-15T09:08:40.080-07:002017-04-15T09:08:40.080-07:00Oh, one more thing:
> Quantum theoretical laws...Oh, one more thing:<br /><br />> Quantum theoretical laws must be of a statistical kind.<br /><br />The operative word there is "must". There are many things that *can* be modeled statistically (weather, the stock market) but nonetheless (almost certainly) have causes. Our inability to make exact predictions of weather and the stock market are not fundamental physical limitations, Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89669943030431448302017-04-15T09:04:05.719-07:002017-04-15T09:04:05.719-07:00> You seem to key in on the random occurence in...> You seem to key in on the random occurence in time -- such as why did the decay happen at time t and not time t+1, and in fact, if we record the times of decays, tn, we see a random distribution. <br /><br />Yes, that is exactly right.<br /><br />> Yet time isn't the event. Time is the marker of the event - the value by which we order the events. <br /><br />Yes, that is also right. Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-22293035113048716782017-04-14T22:53:02.025-07:002017-04-14T22:53:02.025-07:00Not Getting It
@Ron
>For a long time it was c...<b>Not Getting It</b><br /><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>For a long time it was controversial whether the inability to predict radioactive decay was due to the absence of a cause or some other factor. But thanks to Bell's theorem we know that it is the former. I keep telling you this same thing again and again, and you keep ignoring it.</i><br /><br /><i>>In the quantum world, the causal Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19548656989476702562017-04-09T09:50:19.566-07:002017-04-09T09:50:19.566-07:00@Peter:
> > Mass/energy is conserved
> ...@Peter:<br /><br />> > Mass/energy is conserved<br /><br />> Not globally in a curved spacetime.<br /><br />I debated with myself when I wrote that whether to say "momenergy is conserved" rather than mass/energy, but decided that would be too pedantic. It's hard to tell how much physics a commenter knows, and my blog is targeted towards a general audience.<br /><br />Yes, Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-28268317870362648062017-04-08T23:07:04.563-07:002017-04-08T23:07:04.563-07:00Theory of Anything.<a href="https://goo.gl/9RTtn2" rel="nofollow">Theory of Anything.</a> Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-44472640912429478042017-04-08T23:05:54.507-07:002017-04-08T23:05:54.507-07:00Random != Uncaused
> once it's happened, ...<b>Random != Uncaused</b><br /><br /><br />> once it's happened, we have models for the cause.<br /><br /><i>>Really? What is it? (Note that a demonstrably correct answer to that question will win you a Nobel prize in physics.)</i><br /><br />Consider <a href="https://goo.gl/5ou7Zq" rel="nofollow">alpha decay.</a> When we observe an <a href="https://goo.gl/8xpzK7" rel="nofollow">alpha Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24789058826613803672017-04-06T08:29:47.228-07:002017-04-06T08:29:47.228-07:00@Publius:
(Sorry for the long delay in responding...@Publius:<br /><br />(Sorry for the long delay in responding. I've been on the road.)<br /><br />> once it's happened, we have models for the cause.<br /><br />Really? What is it? (Note that a demonstrably correct answer to that question will win you a Nobel prize in physics.)<br /><br />> would these phenomena also have no cause?<br /><br />No. All classical phenomena have Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69483570824667242832017-04-02T01:55:47.931-07:002017-04-02T01:55:47.931-07:00Rogue Random
@Ron:
>Saying that an event is ca...<b>Rogue Random</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>Saying that an event is caused by "the random process" or even "a random process" is the *same thing* as saying that the event has no cause. There is no local state that correlates with the event. That is the *definition* of not having a cause.</i><br /><br />This seems curiously ill-defined. Given the above, the two examples Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60960346392306357342017-03-31T06:50:37.872-07:002017-03-31T06:50:37.872-07:00> The nature of God and the heavens is more lik...> The nature of God and the heavens is more like the The Fly of Despair.<br /><br />I don't know if that link was a mistake or not, but if not, then things like that make it very hard for me to take you seriously.<br /><br />> If some "thing" comes from sampling a random process, can't we say that "thing" is caused by the random process?<br /><br />You can say Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-9912117772268802352017-03-30T11:26:53.203-07:002017-03-30T11:26:53.203-07:00It's Turtles All The Way Down
@Ron
>This i...<b>It's Turtles All The Way Down</b><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>This is the fundamental problem with hidden state: it's hidden. Our universe could be run by a cosmic Turing machine, or it could be a simulation built by intelligent aliens. We can't eliminate either possibility, nor a myriad others, on the basis of experiment.</i><br /><br />At this point, you start to veer from the Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.com