Originally posted by apathista said 'cause' could be a law of physics that says the probabilities of an outcome although that might be an abuse of the word 'cause' so I decided not to risk confusing you with that.
Wtf is 'true randomness'? No cause?
I have now 3 times thoroughly explained the meaning of 'true randomness' to you.
Originally posted by humy...Probabilistic, as I thought.Not to be confused with 'random'. Toss the dice and they never cone up rabbits.
It is a very common widely propagated myth among laypeople and , shamefully, even among many scientists, that quantum physics says 'true' randomness exists; ( 'true' randomness specifically as opposed to pseudo-randomness; I will clarify the meaning of that on request ) it says nothing of the sort and true randomness is just a purely metaphysical interpretatio ...[text shortened]... o be confused with the quantum physics itself and its equations that says nothing on that matter....
apathist
Earlier I was reluctant to say any connection between 'cause' and 'determinism' and 'causeless' and 'random' in fear this will just confuse you via what is called equivocation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation ) of the subtly different meanings of the word 'cause'. But that tactic backfired because you equivocated the different meanings anyway. So now instead I explain this;
There are two main subtly different meanings of the word 'cause' commonly used in everyday English although I assert only one should ever be used and the other always rejected.
Firstly, there is what I call proper-cause where the prefix 'proper-' is there because I assert that is really the only meaning we should reserve for the word 'cause'. Proper-cause means the occurrence of one event or arrangement earlier in time naturally resulting (as a result of natural law) in the occurrence of another event or arrangement later in time and is such that if all else was kept equal but the earlier event was prevented then the later event wouldn't have or will not occur (the latter part of that statement there is important to state there to make the distinction between correlation and causation else there is the risk of equivocating thus confusing the two).
Then there is the much more looser and generic meaning of the word cause that I call explanation-cause, which means simply an explanation for something. I assert that the explanation-cause meaning of the word 'cause' readily causes misunderstanding and thus should never be used and we should just say "explanation" instead whenever that is the actual intended meaning.
There is also what I call correleation-cause, which is a specialized form of explanation-cause, which I also assert should never be used because it means the explanation in the form of a said correlation, and that tends to readily causes confusion by equivocating correlation with true causation.
To demonstrate the possible confusion via examples of equivocation between these different meanings of the word 'cause';
If someone asked "what causes night to be followed by day?" and you answered "night is always followed by day" thus implying that is the 'cause' of night, the kind of 'cause' you are explaining there is correleation-cause, not to be confused with proper-cause. I assert night is not caused by day even though it is always followed by day (thus correlated with day). But there I am using the proper-cause meaning of the word 'cause', not the explanation-cause meaning.
If someone asked "what causes quantum randomness?" and you answered "the law of physics" thus implying the law of physics 'causes' particular 'random' outcomes, the problem with that is that this is explanation-cause, not proper-cause, for the law of physics is not an event or arrangement that is such that it 'coming into existence' or it 'occurring' at some earlier point in time is what naturally results in a particular 'random' outcome being whatever it is at some specific later point in time thus this isn't a proper-cause but rather merely an explanation i.e. this is explanation-cause. If we are talking here about proper-cause, a 'truly' random (as opposed to pseudo-random) event can only be correctly to be said to be 'causeless'.
Incidentally; I will explain all the above (along with all my research findings) in my book that I plan to arrange to get published in about a years time (I said that in the middle of last year; got that estimate wildly wrong)
Originally posted by chaney3In other words, since science is a human endevour, and we actually don't know every detail of the universe, therefore nothing learned using science is valid? For instance, if solar eclipses were perfect, there would never be annular eclipses, which are not total but have a ring of bright light around the moon. And the orbit of the moon would not be off by several degrees from Earth and every eclipse would be total. None of that happens.
Really?
Science can fully explain the brain?
Science can explain dark matter?
But since science can't explain brains, or dark matter, that allows you to dis all science.
Interesting. From one POV anyway.
You do realize science is still in kindergarten right? Only a few hundred years old, say 5 or 6 lifetimes of active science. And how many years have humans been around?
So don't be so harsh on science. Right now, in a large part due to the presence of the internet, science is advancing at logrithmic rates, explosive growth of all the sciences.
So come back in another 200 years and say the same about science, see what that gets you.
Originally posted by chaney3I love pratchett
The moon is in a perfect orbit of the earth with regards to its position.
The moon is not only the perfect size, but the perfect distance from the sun, to produce a perfect eclipse.
The odds of this being an accident of the universe are likely to be beyond calculation.
The size and postion of the moon and sun, relative to earth equals......Design.
and he fuking died kinda mad at him right now
Originally posted by sonhouseyou ever think you over-think.
In other words, since science is a human endevour, and we actually don't know every detail of the universe, therefore nothing learned using science is valid? For instance, if solar eclipses were perfect, there would never be annular eclipses, which are not total but have a ring of bright light around the moon. And the orbit of the moon would not be off by s ...[text shortened]... es.
So come back in another 200 years and say the same about science, see what that gets you.
Originally posted by apathistWhether you can over-think depends on whether you think rationally.
you ever think you over-think.
For those that think rationally, over-thinking is a self-contradiction thus there isn't such thing as over-thinking .
For those that don't, any thinking they do is over-thinking even if they don't know it.
Originally posted by apathistI think you misunderstand the concept of hidden variables. A system can be deterministic without having hidden variables determining e.g. position or momentum. An example from elementary quantum mechanics is a non-interacting particle in a box.
I understand that your camp [b]wishes there were hidden variables involved in quantum behavior.[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut when hidden variables are required to rescue your system.
i think you misunderstand the concept of hidden variables. A system can be deterministic without having hidden variables determining e.g. position or momentum. An example from elementary quantum mechanics is a non-interacting particle in a box.