14 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...A dice has 6 sides, so when you throw it, you are causing one of six sides to show up. ...”
A dice has 6 sides, so when you throw it, you are causing one of six sides to show up.
If you were skilled enough, and you could throw the dice with the same angle, the same velocity, the same spin, the same height and when it left your hand have it in the exact same position.....you would find it to show the same resut many more times.
When you thr is first cause (for the science person) if they continue to remain in the dark about that.
you misunderstand here I think because you are confusing pseudo-random events (such as dice throws which are difficult to predict but not truly random) with real-random events (such as quantum events according to the most common interpretation of them but note I am not claiming that interpretation is correct).
I assume twhitehead was talking about the latter and not the the former?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by souvereinNo. I would call that totally predictable.
How would you describe a totally unpredictable event. Like a roulette that turns capriciously 300 times to 27, never to 26 etc.?
I know we cannot predict one turn.
ie it is random.
But the sum of turns we can predict rather precisely. There is clearly a mechanism that prevents the roulette to behave capricious.
No, you are interpreting it wrong. There is simply no mechanism that causes the roulette to behave according to a pattern - hence a statistically random outcome.
If you agree with this I wonder why you exclude the possibility of a mechanism that forces subatomic particles as a group or unit to react in a predictable way and not to act capriciously.
Now you are reversing it. You are saying that subatomic particles when acting as a group to not act randomly.
One particle behaves A, next particle behaves B. If it behaves A, the next one will behave B etc. etc.. The particles got a lot of freedom, but not all the freedom. What mechanism or input is here at work that we can predict the outcome?
The laws of physics? But those behaviors are not exactly predictable - hence the uncertainty principle and quantum dynamics.
14 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonActually, baring weighted dice and very low or perfectly vertical throws, a die throw is a random event (feeding off quantum dynamics and the uncertainty principle). Its a result of chaos theory.
you completely misunderstand here because you are confusing pseudo-random events (such as dice throws which are difficult to predict but not truly random)
twhitehead was talking about the latter and not the the former.
I claim the former is a visible effect of the latter - just as the refraction of light is.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadChaos theory is about deterministic systems appearing random. 😕
Actually, baring weighted dice and very low or perfectly vertical throws, a die throw is a random event (feeding off quantum dynamics and the uncertainty principle). Its a result of chaos theory.
[b]twhitehead was talking about the latter and not the the former.
I claim the former is a visible effect of the latter - just as the refraction of light is.[/b]
14 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead“...Actually, baring weighted dice and very low or perfectly vertical throws, a die throw is a random event (feeding off quantum dynamics and the uncertainty principle). Its a result of chaos theory. ...”
Actually, baring weighted dice and very low or perfectly vertical throws, a die throw is a random event (feeding off quantum dynamics and the uncertainty principle). Its a result of chaos theory.
[b]twhitehead was talking about the latter and not the the former.
I claim the former is a visible effect of the latter - just as the refraction of light is.[/b]
oh no, you are making the all too common misunderstanding of chaos theory:
I have studied chaos theory at university and I can tell it clearly states that the outcome is difficult to predict EVEN when there is no random element to it! In fact, one of the multiple-choice exam questions I got on it was clearly designed to catch students out with this so awfully common misunderstanding by giving the answer “chaos theory is a theory of randomness” as a bad choice for the answer to one of the questions.
Chaos theory is NOT a theory of randomness!
The unpredictability is caused by the fact that the tiniest difference in the starting condition causes a totally different outcome and, because we cannot measure the starting condition with infinite accuracy, our predictions would probably be wildly wrong.
This can be demonstrated using a mathematical equation for generating a fractal pattern -no randomness there! And yet if we change the starting condition even slightly, the resulting pattern can be very different!
“...I claim the former is a visible effect of the latter. ...”
then I have misunderstood you. And Quantum mechanics doesn't say this!
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"...I assume twhitehead was talking about the latter and not the the former?..."
“...A dice has 6 sides, so when you throw it, you are causing one of six sides to show up. ...”
you misunderstand here I think because you are confusing pseudo-random events (such as dice throws which are difficult to predict but not truly random) with real-random events (such as quantum events according to the most common interpretation of them b ...[text shortened]... retation is correct).
I assume twhitehead was talking about the latter and not the the former?
...and I assumed wrong!
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, I suppose it is. More importantly it is about "... the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions." (Wikipedia).
Chaos theory is about deterministic systems appearing random. 😕
If the initial conditions (quantum effects) are random, that randomness will be translated into a much larger effect on the result of the die roll. What I am claiming is that even though the die roll, is largely deterministic, it is chaotic too and that makes it susceptible to quantum effects which are random. Thus it is theoretically impossible to predict the outcome of a die role (and not 'difficult to predict' as Andrew said).
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou misunderstood me. I didn't say it was.
Chaos theory is NOT a theory of randomness!
The unpredictability is caused by the fact that the tiniest difference in the starting condition causes a totally different outcome and, because we cannot measure the starting condition with infinite accuracy, our predictions would probably be wildly wrong.
And since we cannot measure the starting conditions due to the uncertainty principle, a die throw is as unpredictable and random as any quantum event.
14 Feb 11
It seems this issue is deeper than I thought and that more people than I realized have the same hang up over the universality of causation. I now realize that it really goes back to the old question "Does God play dice?". I believe Einstein would side with predictability but could not prove it, and Hawking would side with unpredictability. (If I am wrong on this, please correct me.)
So, my argument is now that:
1. Quantum events are known to be indistinguishable from random events.
2. There is no reason to believe there is a cause for the events.
3. We should use Occam's razor and not assume a cause.
Yes, macro events are largely deterministic and because we live in a macro world we get 'hung up' on the idea, but there is absolutely no actual reason for thinking that it applies to the micro / quantum world and this hangup of ours has lead to the great difficulty scientists over the years have had accepting quantum mechanics.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhitehead“...And since we cannot measure the starting conditions due to the uncertainty principle, a die throw is as unpredictable and random as any quantum event. ...”
You misunderstood me. I didn't say it was.
[b]The unpredictability is caused by the fact that the tiniest difference in the starting condition causes a totally different outcome and, because we cannot measure the starting condition with infinite accuracy, our predictions would probably be wildly wrong.
And since we cannot measure the starti ...[text shortened]... to the uncertainty principle, a die throw is as unpredictable and random as any quantum event.[/b]
in both cases above we have “ unpredictable” but, if the interpretation of quantum mechanics that says quantum events are truly causeless is correct (and I am not claiming that it is) then only in the latter case is there “true randomness” (because it is truly causeless) while in the former there is “pseudo-randomness” (because it isn't truly causeless). Although, having said that, personally, I am a bit suspicious of that interpretation.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn what way sense are initial conditions on a die throw random? Quantum effects have no known effect on macroscopic phenomena such as dice throwing. You need very extreme conditions for this to happen.
Yes, I suppose it is. More importantly it is about "... the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions." (Wikipedia).
If the initial conditions (quantum effects) are random, that randomness will be translated into a much larger effect on the result of the die roll. What I am claiming is that even though the die roll, is ...[text shortened]... ssible to predict the outcome of a die role (and not 'difficult to predict' as Andrew said).
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAs I said, the throw of a die is chaotic. Here I am not referring to the fact that a chaotic deterministic system may appear random, but the fact that even small changes to the starting conditions result in large changes to the end result in a chaotic system.
In what way sense are initial conditions on a die throw random? Quantum effects have no known effect on macroscopic phenomena such as dice throwing. You need very extreme conditions for this to happen.
Therefore, if for example, one electron is moved - it can have an effect on the outcome of the throw of the die. There are enough quantum effects going on that they have enough of an effect on the die throw as to make its result theoretically unpredictable.
And you are mistaken about quantum effects having no known effect on macroscopic phenomena. As already stated, the wave nature of light is entirely a result of quantum effects. Without quantum effects we have no reflection, no refraction, you wouldn't even be able to see the result of the die throw.
OK. I'll admit here that I don't actually know if a typical die throw is sufficiently chaotic to be totally unpredictable: but I maintain that it is entirely possible that it is, and a sufficiently long throw will definitely magnify the quantum effects (through chaos) till they have an effect on the outcome.