[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Even quantum physics is based on math. The math just doesn't add up the same way conventional physics does. This is a problem, too, and generally regarded as indicating a gap in our knowledge that's needed to unify physics again.

Precisely. We won't see, when the dust settles, something like this:

[quattrokid73]

what gives physics its credence?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

what gives physics its credence?

The fact that airplanes don't fall out of the sky?

[quattrokid73]

indeed. i should have been more direct.

what parameters does physics run on as a system for governing the interaction of matter?

what is the physics of physics? quantum is a cop-out.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

what parameters does physics run on as a system for governing the interaction of matter?

Governing?

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by starman 

I got into this philosophical debate with a friend of mine yesterday afternoon. I don't agree with her at all, but I thought it would be a good topic for here.

She says that nobody has true free will, that everything we do is a product of our environment, our upbringing, our biology. Everything we do or say is net because we truly want to, but because that's how our brains are "programmed" to react based on past experiences.

Thoughts?

I countered with art, science, philosophy.

The theologians and philosophers have hammered this one out: "All human behavior is either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by something else. But human behavior can be self-caused, since there is nothing contradictory about a self-caused action (as there is about a self-caused being). For an action does not have to be prior to itself to be caused by oneself. Only the self (I) must be prior to the action. A self-caused action is simply one caused by my self. And my self (I) is prior to my actions."

Source: http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/Determinism.html

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice 

Physics proves determinism. Chemistry is based upon physics. Humans are complex chemical reactions, which, by the way, still adhere to the laws of physics. Free will, therefore, is an illusion.

B.F. Skinner and Einstein sure wished physics proved determinism but physics likes randomness. Thankfully we have Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. People are so into it that T-shirts can be purchased featuring freewill expressed mathematically.

[wolfen]

Taking the subject in a slightly different direction and address the validity of physics: its practical limits are man's limits. Science relies on man's ability to imagine, perceive, and comprehend. If you believe absolutely all truth can be grasped by a creature that is estimated to be 95-99% chimpanzee, then "Yay Science!" -- and physics will be the answer to every question.

But if you think there will always be some set of truths that are empirically untestable and unreproduceable, then you accept that science's validity is restricted to some subset of Reality. And if you accept this restriction, then you accept that science can't know how much it doesn't know. So it would never know what proportion of total truth is addressable by physics.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Even quantum physics is based on math. The math just doesn't add up the same way conventional physics does. This is a problem, too, and generally regarded as indicating a gap in our knowledge that's needed to unify physics again.

All physical theories are based on mathematics as mathematics is the language physicists speak.

I'm not sure what you mean by `the math doesn't add up the same way conventional physics does.' First of all, quantum mechanics is conventional physics. Also, quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics in several ways, but quantum mechanics is more fundamental -- which we know from experience. So classical mechanics (I think that's what you mean by conventional physics) is -- in a suitable sense -- an idealization of a quantum system.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Governing?

It's a fixed expression in physics to say that the physics/dynamics/kinematics are determined by this interaction.

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

what parameters does physics run on as a system for governing the interaction of matter?

Physics does not `run on parameters'.

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

what is the physics of physics? quantum is a cop-out.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here … 
Quantum theory works very well in predicting many phenomena.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed 

B.F. Skinner and Einstein sure wished physics proved determinism but physics likes randomness. Thankfully we have Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. People are so into it that T-shirts can be purchased featuring freewill expressed mathematically.

There are versions of quantum mechanics where this is eliminated and the system is in a definite state at every point in time (e. g. Bohmian mechanics). However, the accuracy of simultaneous measurements of momentum and position are limited by the uncertainty principle. That doesn't necessarily mean that position and momentum are random. Randomness is inherently connected to lack of knowledge -- whether this lack is founded in ignorance or principle.

[quattrokid73]

wolfen you are very inciteful.

i knew there wouldn't be an answer to my prior questions. they cant be answered now and probably never.

[- - e r i k - -]

Insightful or just philosophical? Even if we accept his second statement as truth it is inherently meaningless for our perception of the universe and can safely be disregarded.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Taking the subject in a slightly different direction and address the validity of physics: its practical limits are man's limits. Science relies on man's ability to imagine, perceive, and comprehend. If you believe absolutely all truth can be grasped by a creature that is estimated to be 95-99% chimpanzee, then "Yay Science!" -- and physics will be the answer to every question.

No, physics is not subjective, i. e. an apple will still fall from a tree, even if a cockroach is watching. The assumptions physical theories are based on are to a certain degree. What you're describing here is a subjective reality that depends on the person/animal, i. e. what the world looks like if viewed from his/her eyes. In this respect, a spherical earth or a heliocentric solar system are new ideas that `haven't existed before'. Only after it has been accepted by a large share of the populous, they became universally accepted `truths.'

Originally Posted by wolfen 

But if you think there will always be some set of truths that are empirically untestable and unreproduceable, then you accept that science's validity is restricted to some subset of Reality. And if you accept this restriction, then you accept that science can't know how much it doesn't know. So it would never know what proportion of total truth is addressable by physics.

This question has already been answered by philosophers that look at the limits of science. The limits are for example untestable parts of a theory (e. g. in thermodynamics) and aspects you need to believe in. So this is a well-researched aspect of scientific theories. For physicists and philosophers in that field alike, the distinction between things you need to believe/have faith in and things you can deduce is very clear-cut.

The other aspect that hasn't been addressed at all is that physics largely consists of effective theories, i. e. larger, more complex systems are reduced to simpler ones by means of approximations. Thermodynamics is probably the most prominent example: it's not a fundamental theory, but arises from the underlying microscopic dynamics from abstract considerations. However, the benefit is that a system is described by a few parameters (e. g. pressure, temperature, volume) instead of 10^26 parameters. Call it skillful ignorance if you wish. However, there are mathematical theorems that tell you this system will almost-surely behave typically (based on certain assumptions, of course).

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, physics is not subjective, i. e. an apple will still fall from a tree, even if a cockroach is watching. The assumptions physical theories are based on are to a certain degree. What you're describing here is a subjective reality that depends on the person/animal, i. e. what the world looks like if viewed from his/her eyes. In this respect, a spherical earth or a heliocentric solar system are new ideas that `haven't existed before'. Only after it has been accepted by a large share of the populous, they became universally accepted `truths.'

No - Reality is not subjective. Physics is a systems tool used by man to describe Reality. Any group of scientists' ability to perceive, organize, and describe its findings is dependent upon the limits of homo sapien. You can't separate science from its practitioners, even if theoretically you can.

This question has already been answered by philosophers that look at the limits of science. The limits are for example untestable parts of a theory (e. g. in thermodynamics) and aspects you need to believe in. So this is a well-researched aspect of scientific theories. For physicists and philosophers in that field alike, the distinction between things you need to believe/have faith in and things you can deduce is very clear-cut.

Clear cut as in "the battle lines are drawn among intelligent scientists." For example: Einstein used his spiritual ideas to inform his physics. Feynman said one has nothing to do with the other. And scientists around the world continue to offer differing views on whether or not science should be the sole method of inquiry to address the entirety of human experience. There are prestigious thinkers taking different positions in this discussion.

My take is simple: The theories of evolution describe processes by which we evolved the tools necessary for survival. The tools to explain the fabric of reality are likely to be acquired much later in our evolution. The argument that these are one and the same (scientific fundamentalism) is not skillful ignorance, but willful ignorance.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

No - Reality is not subjective. Physics is a systems tool used by man to describe Reality. Any group of scientists' ability to perceive, organize, and describe its findings is dependent upon the limits of homo sapien. You can't separate science from its practitioners, even if theoretically you can.

No, you are mixing subjective vs. objective reality again. First of all, science is not limited to what man can see, feel, touch and taste. Many experiments are way beyond the perceptive capabilities of a human being (e. g. global data of temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. that can be obtained by satellites or so).

Subjective reality is -- as the name suggests -- subjective. Then my grandmother's perception of the world surely is very different from mine. This is not what science is about since the tumor exists, no matter if a doctor finds it on an NMR image or not. The apple still falls downwards for my grandmother. If we were living in a 0 g environment, then the idea of gravity might seem very exotic to the average person!

Science is about `objective reality' (there are philosophical limitations to that): you measure something by objective criteria and if the experiment is done properly, another group on another continent can replicate the same experiment.

The closest thing you are probably getting at is a question of complexity, i. e. the amount of data that is necessary to describe a physical system. However, this doesn't mean an accurate physical description is out of reach, you probably just need a different theory! It is practically impossible to describe a small volume of gas microscopically (using Newton's equations of motion, for example), but you can still describe it effectively with thermodynamics.

Also, mathematically, practicality is not necessarily a prerequisite! An example: say you have the above two ways to describe a gas. Then there are mathematically rigorous proofs that tell you the following: (i) up to a small error, the finite amount of gas can be described by thermodynamic quantities such as pressure and temperature and (ii) this gas which is made up of atoms is accurately described by a continuous density of gas. Then you have concluded by abstract arguments that a gas is accurately described by thermodynamics. All you needed is that in principle there exists a solution, but not what it looks like in detail.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Clear cut as in "the battle lines are drawn among intelligent scientists." For example: Einstein used his spiritual ideas to inform his physics. Feynman said one has nothing to do with the other. And scientists around the world continue to offer differing views on whether or not science should be the sole method of inquiry to address the entirety of human experience. There are prestigious thinkers taking different positions in this discussion.

No, that wasn't what I was referring to. You're talking about religious faith and science, but this is not the same as what I'm getting at now and what is pertinent to the problems you've mentioned. Physics and any other science is based on assumptions, e. g. that the laws of physics are the same in 10 minutes as they are now. This question does not touch the subject of religious faith at all. But without this assumption, you cannot do science, because everything you say would be invalidated 10 minutes later. Another assumption is that the universe makes sense in the first place and can be accurately described by theories. Assumptions of this type cannot be proven, but you have to `believe in them'. This was the meaning of faith I was referring to.

If you want to describe a system, you assume it is accurately described by your theory. Usually this places natural restrictions on scope of validity. Say, you want to describe water or wind currents: then you describe air not by molecules (discrete entities), but a continuous density. Obviously this theory will fail as soon as you go to the atomic level. This limit is well-known to each physicists and philosophers that study the intersection of natural sciences (usually physics) and philosophy.

It is natural for scientists to separate between things you have to assume and things you can deduce under certain assumptions. The existence of God, for example, belongs to the former category. Given a set of assumptions, there are also things that can neither be proven or disproven, unless you assume one or the other. I think this is where many god-fearing individuals get confused, because they fear science is a replacement for religious beliefs (or beliefs of any other sort), it's not. A good scientists, however, knows the distinction of things you have to believe and those you can deduce. Most people who feel threatened by scientific progress do not (e. g. fundamentalist Muslims or Christians).

Originally Posted by wolfen 

My take is simple: The theories of evolution describe processes by which we evolved the tools necessary for survival. The tools to explain the fabric of reality are likely to be acquired much later in our evolution. The argument that these are one and the same (scientific fundamentalism) is not skillful ignorance, but willful ignorance.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by scientific fundamentalism in that context?

[wolfen]

No, you are mixing subjective vs. objective reality again. First of all, science is not limited to what man can see, feel, touch and taste. Many experiments are way beyond the perceptive capabilities of a human being (e. g. global data of temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. that can be obtained by satellites or so).

I'm not mixing my terms. You are not acknowledging limits to the homo sapien brain. It is impossible to continue a discussion of scientific validity without doing so. The question isn't whether or not the apple falls down -- the question is "What else is going on related to this event that I (A) cannot detect (B) do not know to account for and (C) can never explain due to the limits of my capacity to understand? I won't address the remainder of your post trying to clarify objective vs. subjective because I don't misunderstand.

My ideas RE: scientific fundamentalist relate to the ideas proposed by many pseudo-scientists (my label, obviously) that deny the relevance of anything that could qualify for all 3 issues above: A, B, and C. I respect very highly your incisive perspective that it's an issue of domain. So I don't think we are on different wavelengths. My posts primarily address people who believe all things relevant to human experience fall into the domain of science.

You seem to be defending science's reliability -- defending its methods of data collection, etc. I am addressing its validity. I cannot argue against the assertion that, within its boundaries, science is king. My position is that science cannot know how much of the landscape it rules over, and that this is in part due to limitations of man.

Let me provide the example this time (however ludicrous it may be): Let's say mankind evolves to physically and consistently perceive something that could only be defined in modern physics as "non-physical." You might think about this in terms of mathematical ideas for which we have no formulas. This new sense would likely expand the boundaries of science, no? The same way the evolution of seeing in color informs our inquiry, so would any other evolution of the organism. My argument is that our current biological state will not support fantasies of man understanding the universe. Yes -- this is an assumption. But a highly defensible one, I believe.

So, how many senses are we short? How many truths is our current arrangement of grey matter incapable of imagining? Etc. Etc. It's not a radical idea, really. A retrospective analysis of our evolutionary chain demonstrates incredible limitations at each link. Some people's inability to acknowledge our own limitations affects scientific integrity. But scientific fundamentalists would argue that I'm simply an irrational deconstructionist. They can't concede mankind may be incapable of devising a fulcrum and lever for any earth it wants to move. And I think that's largely a product of an egocentric religion as opposed to humble scientific inquiry. You seem to be promoting the latter, and for that I'm grateful.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'm not mixing my terms. You are not acknowledging limits to the homo sapien brain. It is impossible to continue a discussion of scientific validity without doing so. The question isn't whether or not the apple falls down -- the question is "What else is going on related to this event that I (A) cannot detect (B) do not know to account for and (C) can never explain due to the limits of my capacity to understand? I won't address the remainder of your post trying to clarify objective vs. subjective because I don't misunderstand.

Again, there are limits to understanding and limits to practicality. You can do Newtonian mechanics for two particles or 10^26, where the latter is as easy to understand as the former. However to do actual calculations with the latter is -- practically -- impossible.

The problem with (C) is that it is (i) subjective, (ii) dependent on cultural and scientific development of society and (iii) constantly pushed onwards. It is entirely subjective as my limit to understand physics is different from yours, my grandmother's or Einstein's. Also, different people will understand different aspects in different degrees: a specialist in differential geometry will be able to teach me a few things, but so will I when it comes to a different topic. However, that doesn't limit any of our individual efforts to enhance our knowledge in our respective fields. In other words: even though there are limits to your individual understanding, it wouldn't invalidate a complex theory -- one too complex for one individual to understand -- one bit. The theory just is. And if it takes many people to properly understand and work with it.

To use yet another metaphor: imagine the development a plane, say the A380 or the B787. Do you think the engineer who is in charge of the turbine blades understands how the wiring in the cockpit works? Do you think it's practically possible for one single person to understand a machine of this complexity? I personally don't think so. Yet the plane flies and performs as expected by the engineers! You see, individual limitations aren't a limit to a certain theory. Of course you can crank up the complexity by taking my example and making it bigger. But that would just mean that it's practically impossible to do it (i. e. the system is too big), although the principles are simple.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

My ideas RE: scientific fundamentalist relate to the ideas proposed by many pseudo-scientists (my label, obviously) that deny the relevance of anything that could qualify for all 3 issues above: A, B, and C. I respect very highly your incisive perspective that it's an issue of domain. So I don't think we are on different wavelengths. My posts primarily address people who believe all things relevant to human experience fall into the domain of science.

I don't know of any scientist who would discard all three, quite the opposite, (A) is essential for any scientist and the basic tool for physics: making good approximations. Nobody would deny the relevance of (A). (B) is rather a problem when a theory does not work and ignorance towards (B) is not a problem when a theory works. Also, this (B) is connected to (A).

I've detailed my point of view on (C) above. I think it's simply a non-issue, philosophically.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

You seem to be defending science's reliability -- defending its methods of data collection, etc. I am addressing its validity. I cannot argue against the assertion that, within its boundaries, science is king. My position is that science cannot know how much of the landscape it rules over, and that this is in part due to limitations of man.

The answer depends crucially on what you mean by `landscape'. If you are referring to domains of validity, then this question is answered quite clearly by comparison with experiment. The domains are pushed back further and further.

If you are talking about the various aspects of the universe, take a look at my comments on (C): also this is pretty well-known.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Let me provide the example this time (however ludicrous it may be): Let's say mankind evolves to physically and consistently perceive something that could only be defined in modern physics as "non-physical." You might think about this in terms of mathematical ideas for which we have no formulas. This new sense would likely expand the boundaries of science, no? The same way the evolution of seeing in color informs our inquiry, so would any other evolution of the organism. My argument is that our current biological state will not fantasies of man understanding the universe. Yes -- this is an assumption. But a highly defensible one, I believe.

So the first instinct is to find a mathematical formalism to describe this `new' reality. It's not `non-physical', but the laws of physics are simply different. Which means all we need to do is find new tools to describe and predict the outcomes of experiments. It's a limitation of understanding that will be overcome with time, but has nothing to do with an eternal, standing barrier.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

So, how many senses are we short? How many truths is our current arrangement of grey matter incapable of imagining? Etc. Etc. It's not a radical idea, really. A retrospective analysis of our evolutionary chain demonstrates incredible limitations at each link. Some people's inability to acknowledge our own limitations affects scientific integrity. But scientific fundamentalists would argue that I'm simply an irrational deconstructionist. They can't concede mankind may be incapable of devising a fulcrum and lever for any earth it wants to move. And I think that's largely a product of an egocentric religion as opposed to humble scientific inquiry. You seem to be promoting the latter, and for that I'm grateful.

No, it's not about being short of senses.
Also you're (correctly) saying that we should accept our own limitations as human beings. But you shouldn't equate the limitations of human beings with the limitations of science.

I think I would sum things up in the following way: by saying that `even though you can separate science from its practitioners [sounds like a cult to me], in practice you can't', you equate the reach of science with the sum of knowledge we have at this point in time. I guess this is the `objective part' of reality. You also seem to focus on limitations of one individual and define the `subjective part' of reality. Your third point is that you put a lot of emphasis on `the ability to understand', although you concede that this isn't something you can easily define.

My argument is that neither of these are `limitation' as I would call them. A limitation is a barrier that -- in principle -- I cannot overcome. So for me, what you are calling a limitation is really just a limit of practicality: in principle I can count to infinity (yes, I can, it's just a simple mathematical procedure), practically, I can't (since my lifespan is finite). Especially if scientists collaborate, the limits are really just practical limits, but not conceptual limits. Those two have to be distinguished very clearly.

Now I want to know your comments to the rest of my previous post

[wolfen]

The apes aren't exploring Alpha Centauri anytime soon. You seem to be arguing that eventually, working collectively with sound scientific methodology, they can do it. I'm pointing and saying "LOOK! THEY'RE APES!"

You seem to imply that the collective capacities of man are without bounds. My position is that these bounds are likely very real, and very prohibitive of the conclusion that man can understand anything given enough time. I can't recognize such infinite capability of the beast regardless of the tools it designed and employs, and as a result I see a Reality with fields of "Truthiness" that defy human investigation. I respect your idealism, but cannot pay its price.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion because I don't think it's likely to change much, and it is straying wildly off topic. But I've very much enjoyed a discussion free of ad hominems and such! Much respect.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

scientific fundamentalism

Are you serious? That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Let me provide the example this time (however ludicrous it may be): Let's say mankind evolves to physically and consistently perceive something that could only be defined in modern physics as "non-physical." You might think about this in terms of mathematical ideas for which we have no formulas. This new sense would likely expand the boundaries of science, no? The same way the evolution of seeing in color informs our inquiry, so would any other evolution of the organism. My argument is that our current biological state will not support fantasies of man understanding the universe. Yes -- this is an assumption. But a highly defensible one, I believe.

Finally some interesting thought from you. But again your ideas are in the realm of philosophy. Should they come to term though you may rest assured that a future scientist will evolve with them. For now though science deals with describing reality - objective reality whether we perceive it or not. OreoCookie gave some good examples, but there are better ones: Particle physics and quantum mechanics. Anything that deals with the realm of of things we cannot perceive, yet test and measure, are already testing objective reality.

What I am smelling though is a distinct feeling that you are talking supernatural new age wish wash (non-physical?) that is hardly relevant to science now or in the future. Which puts your ideas firmly in the realm of philosophy and religion rather than in science.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Finally some interesting thought from you. But again your ideas are in the realm of philosophy. Should they come to term though you may rest assured that a future scientist will evolve with them. For now though science deals with describing reality - objective reality whether we perceive it or not. OreoCookie gave some good examples, but there are better ones: Particle physics and quantum mechanics. Anything that deals with the realm of of things we cannot perceive, yet test and measure, are already testing objective reality.

What I am smelling though is a distinct feeling that you are talking supernatural new age wish wash (non-physical?) that is hardly relevant to science now or in the future. Which puts your ideas firmly in the realm of philosophy and religion rather than in science.

I agree with wolfen's point about objectivity. You can argue about the objective nature of the measurement of this and that all you want but #1) there was no "objective" way to determine WHAT to avenues to pursue in science. When they spend time and money splitting particles they are doing so because of the SUBJECTIVE belief/hope that the results will be fruitful. #2) The data my be objective but what you DO with the data is ALWAYS subjective.

The idea that we can truly be objective about anything is just pure fantasy.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Finally some interesting thought from you.

This was unnecessary, and the reason you don't deserve any further response.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

The apes aren't exploring Alpha Centauri anytime soon. You seem to be arguing that eventually, working collectively with sound scientific methodology, they can do it. I'm pointing and saying "LOOK! THEY'RE APES!"

The practical limits of a monkey -- say a chimpanzee or a bonobo -- are different than ours, but talented apes are able to master a few hundred words of sign language for instance. They are aware of themselves, but to a lesser degree than humans are.

A few hundred years ago, the mere idea of space travel was lunacy. If monkeys were to strive for advancing their knowledge of science, they could and they have. For example when a population of monkeys in Japan reached the ocean, they've learnt something new: when they were eating potatoes, the potato of one female slipped into the water. Somehow the monkeys needed additional salt and the female understood that a good way of compensating the lack of salt in their metabolism is to wash the potatoes in sea water. Monkeys are also capable of using tools. Sounds ridiculous, but man started this way, too: making primitive tools at first and then advancing on that.

I'm not saying monkeys will have the potential for space fare, but I am saying is that they can push their boundaries if they want to and need to.

But please don't bring up cockroaches in your next example and stick to sentient beings.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

You seem to imply that the collective capacities of man are without bounds. My position is that these bounds are likely very real, and very prohibitive of the conclusion that man can understand anything given enough time. I can't recognize such infinite capability of the beast regardless of the tools it designed and employs, and as a result I see a Reality with fields of "Truthiness" that defy human investigation. I respect your idealism, but cannot pay its price.

No, that's not what I've said at all. I've said there are boundaries, but of a different nature than what you claim to be. Increasing size increases complexity, but not necessarily the complexity of the underlying principles. You still mix those two, probably because you don't really have a strong background in either physics or mathematics. (Instead, you seem to throw biblical terms into the discussion.) The various branches of mathematics are based on very, very, very few axioms (basic assumptions you have to believe in) and the implications of those axioms are manifold to put it mildly. Their number hasn't increased in a long, long time, mainly because mathematicians need to get to work and prove that these basic assumptions are mutually compatible.

But I think the big mistake you are making here is simply the following: (i) you believe scientists believe there is a theory of everything, a mother of all theories from which everything else can be deduced and (ii) that complex theories are necessary or desirable to explain complex phenomenon.

Scientists do not believe there is a `theory of everything' which can be used to explain everything and anything. Nor do they use the most complex methods for their predictions. We could, for example, use epicycles to predict the motion of stars and neighboring planets. It's a very complicated model. But instead, we can accept Newton's theory of gravity and conclude that our fellow planets (now only 7) revolve around the sun on elliptical orbits. Science strives for simplicity and is often willing to accept a smaller domain of validity. You don't need to make your basic principles more complex to explain new phenomena.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'm going to bow out of this discussion because I don't think it's likely to change much, and it is straying wildly off topic. But I've very much enjoyed a discussion free of ad hominems and such! Much respect.

What a pity that you opt out before addressing the more interesting points I've mentioned above.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

This was unnecessary, and the reason you don't deserve any further response.

Sounds like a cop out to me. Thanks for playing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Rev-O 

There is no such thing as free will, really. Everything from a quantum state on up exists in a predetermined fashion, just in a system suitably complex enough that it is beyond our understanding.

No. If you think that then you don't understand quantum mechanics.

Sorry for jumping into the debate so late. Don't worry guys, free will exists, quantum mechanics requires it.

The position of an electron (anything really), is not determined until you observe it. The larger the object, the more certain you are of its position, but you are never, ever, 100% certain that I'm sitting here typing away thinking that I'm smarter than all of you. If you were, you'd be able to send information faster than light and therefore back in time and therefore you'd be able to receive an answer to your question before you asked it (a paradox). This argument is derived from quantum entanglement. Entanglement allows you to instantaneously affect an entangled particle no matter where it is, however you've no way of using this to send information because the result is always 50/50 (perfectly). If it were even slightly off... i.e. 49.9999/50.00001, then you'd be able to manipulate the situation by duplicating it several times to increase the odds and send information instantaneously.

I recommend reading the book Schrodinger's Rabbits if you're looking for learn a bit more about QM, the argument is expressed in detail in that book. I apologize for the intentionally poor explanation on my part, hopefully someone with the patience will be able to do a better job than I did.

[- - e r i k - -]

Quantum Physics is cool:
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 1 (Updated with pt 2 URL)
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 2 (Updated with pt 3 URL)
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 3 (Updated Pt 4 Link)
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt. 4 (Big DL)

Schrõdinger's Cat explained:
YTMND Teaches Quantum Physics

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Quantum Physics is cool:
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 1 (Updated with pt 2 URL)
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 2 (Updated with pt 3 URL)
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 3 (Updated Pt 4 Link)
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt. 4 (Big DL)

Schrõdinger's Cat explained:
YTMND Teaches Quantum Physics

Mmm... yes. QM is very cool. What's ****ed up is that it's not mentioned in grade school. This means that when kids graduate high school they all have to "relearn" how particles behave. I think it's setting us back. It's like they're guarding it like some super-secret. Ridiculous.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Mmm... yes. QM is very cool. What's ****ed up is that it's not mentioned in grade school. This means that when kids graduate high school they all have to "relearn" how particles behave. I think it's setting us back. It's like they're guarding it like some super-secret. Ridiculous.

You need to move. My backwater-podunk-middle-of-nowhere town's jr. high taught that in the '80s.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You need to move. My backwater-podunk-middle-of-nowhere town's jr. high taught that in the '80s.

Really? Wow. I almost don't believe you, I went to a pretty good school (or so they say). Anybody else? Did they teach QM concepts in your high schools?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Really? Wow. I almost don't believe you, I went to a pretty good school (or so they say). Anybody else? Did they teach QM concepts in your high schools?

I'll admit it wasn't called "quantum mechanics", but is essentially what they taught. I only remember because the teacher was harsh with discipline and I was assigned 16 hours of detention for burping one time. The only detention I ever got.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I only remember because the teacher was harsh with discipline and I was assigned 16 hours of detention for burping one time. The only detention I ever got.

That may well be one of the most ridiculous high school related things I have ever heard.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That may well be one of the most ridiculous high school related things I have ever heard.

Jr. high. 7th grade. I will say this, he had a pretty disciplined classroom and I learned a lot.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I will say this, he had a pretty disciplined classroom and I learned a lot.

That's what all old people say looking back.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's what all old people say looking back.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Dakar²]

Huh?