free will

Originally posted by Phil Hill
It's a common error. A system will tend to increase in entropy if left alone. Take a cup of coffee with a little creamer in it. As entropy increase the creamer disperses itself which would lead one to call entropy disorder. Now take a mixture of oil and water. Given time, it separates into layers, that isn't disorder.

In the equation S = k log w

S = ...[text shortened]... the number of microstates

edit - gravity will also make the disorder and randomness wrong.

Usually, I have to stir my coffee to disperse the creamer.

And is the oil/water mix really an isolated system?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Closed systems tend to increase in entropy, or randomness.

entropy is the trend towards equilibrium. the "randomness" is what is called statistical randomness, not true randomness. all the particles are still following the laws of physics, there are just too many variables to make accurate predictions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"In classical thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is defined phenomenologically by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant. Thus, entropy is also a measure of the tendency of a process, such as a chemical reaction, to be entropically favored, or to proceed in a particular d ...[text shortened]... d the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

and maybe one day you'll learn the difference between statistical randomness and true randomness. but since i already brought this up and you still haven't grasped the concept, i doubt you will ever learn.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
entropy is the trend towards equilibrium. the "randomness" is what is called statistical randomness, not true randomness. all the particles are still following the laws of physics, there are just too many variables to make accurate predictions.

So, going back to the original discussion, what is it about a closed system that excludes 'true' randomness? As I understand it, a system is 'closed' if it never interacts with anything outside the system. But is there something that prevents randomness from being generated within the system?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So, going back to the original discussion, what is it about a closed system that excludes 'true' randomness? As I understand it, a system is 'closed' if it never interacts with anything outside the system. But is there something that prevents randomness from being generated within the system?

yes, within the closed system, everything is cause and effect. entropy doesn't happen randomly; the particles are following their predestined course, bumping into other particles and expanding in space all according to physical laws.

if we were to take a closed system, let's say an enclosed glass cube with a perfect vacuum in it. now we introduce 100 particles into this system, say 100 particles of O2 gas. we know the exact location of all the particles and we know their initial vector and velocity (since we introduced them externally into the closed system) and we have knowledge of all the physical laws acting upon these particles.

we could now use a computer to calculate the exact position of these particles at any given time.

if we could not do this, then some unknown external force is acting upon these particles. this force may or may not be random, we won't know until we identify it.

the only source of potentially true randomness that we know of at this time is quantum physics. it's still a new field of study and very little is known about it. we'll learn more about this as research continues and perhaps we'll discover god in the process.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yes, within the closed system, everything is cause and effect. entropy doesn't happen randomly; the particles are following their predestined course, bumping into other particles and expanding in space all according to physical laws.

if we were to take a closed system, let's say an enclosed glass cube with a perfect vacuum in it. now we introduce 10 ...[text shortened]... learn more about this as research continues and perhaps we'll discover god in the process.

My understanding of QM is that we can't calculate the exact position of particles, but only the probability that they will be in a certain place at a certain time.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the laws of physics are in effect and they work in a closed system. these are known facts. ergo, what i said remains consistent.

It is not a known fact that closed systems follow deterministic laws. And repeating it over and over will not make it into a known fact. Support your claim with either logic or references. But know first that quantum mechanics is not on your side.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not a known fact that closed systems follow deterministic laws. And repeating it over and over will not make it into a known fact. Support your claim with either logic or references. But know first that quantum mechanics is not on your side.

you haven't been reading what i've been saying.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
My understanding of QM is that we can't calculate the exact position of particles, but only the probability that they will be in a certain place at a certain time.

that is the current situation. if however we can calculate the probability of where they will be, then chances are there are physical laws in effect and we just don't know all the mechanics behind them yet. a truly random mechanism is absolutely unpredictable.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you haven't been reading what i've been saying.

Thats not good enough. What did I miss?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if however we can calculate the probability of where they will be, then chances are.....

So its OK to invoke 'chance' but not randomness?

there are physical laws in effect and we just don't know all the mechanics behind them yet. a truly random mechanism is absolutely unpredictable.
Not so. A truly random mechanism can still have a probability curve. You are incorrectly assuming that 'truly random' means 'equal distribution probability'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So its OK to invoke 'chance' but not randomness?

[b]there are physical laws in effect and we just don't know all the mechanics behind them yet. a truly random mechanism is absolutely unpredictable.
Not so. A truly random mechanism can still have a probability curve. You are incorrectly assuming that 'truly random' means 'equal distribution probability'.[/b]

well, now i realize the root of the disagreement in our discussions. you don't understand the difference between statistical randomness and true randomness.

a truly random mechanism can have no predictability; no intelligible pattern. true randomness has objective unpredictability.

when you begin to talk about randomness in relation to probability distributions, you are talking about statistical randomness, not true randomness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats not good enough. What did I miss?

you missed the parts where i made provisions for quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
well, now i realize the root of the disagreement in our discussions. you don't understand the difference between statistical randomness and true randomness.

I think I do understand.

a truly random mechanism can have no predictability; no intelligible pattern. true randomness has objective unpredictability.
That is not true. Only evenly distributed randomness has that property. And in fact that even distribution itself could be called 'predictability'.
To demonstrate, let us suppose that the outcome of the role of a die is truly random. Now throw two die repeatedly and record the totals. The results will now have a probability curve. (there is a diagram on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice#Probability).

Does this now mean that the outcome of the die are now definitely causal? No, of course not. The outcome is still truly random.

If you read the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
I think you will find numerous references to randomness in conjunction with a probability distribution. In fact the only time when equal distribution is mentioned is when it comes to 'random selection', but even then I dispute that it is a requirement but rather it is simply implied unless otherwise specified.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you missed the parts where i made provisions for quantum mechanics.

I don't believe you did make any such provisions. You specifically mentioned quantum mechanics and claimed that it too must be deterministic. I also wonder how you can 'make provisions' for quantum mechanics when making sweeping claims about the universe. Quantum mechanics is how the universe works.