originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Backstory: I'm taking this deductive logic course centered around a theory called Information Measurement Theory developed by the professor who heads a research group. I'm concerned this will turn out to be a pseudoscientific philosophy course, especially after today.
Topics discussed today about the theory were:
-Randomness does not exist
-It is not possible to control others
-It is not possible to influence others
-A person defines his/her environment, while simultaneously, the environment defines the person
-No person can know all information
So I ended up getting into an argument with the prof, the TA, and half of the class about randomness. I argued that randomness does exist, or at minimum, it's arrogant and naive to presume to know that the universe is deterministic. This seems especially true given their fifth theorem that no person can know all information.
Examples I cited were dice, queuing theory, radioactive decay, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Dice and queuing theory are not what one would call "truly random", in the sense that with enough information, one could deterministically predict the outcome with certainty. However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is impossible to refute without finding some way to expand quantum mechanics to a universal scale. Wave function collapse caused by external mechanisms can only be prevented if nothing in existence is external to the system being observed.
So while it's possible that every event is deterministic, that would require knowledge of all things, which is directly contradictory to their fifth theorem.
Anyways, I'd like to hear what you think about this "theory" of theirs, the various theorems, and about randomness.
-
Well, do you subscribe to the Multiverse theory?
-
what is chaotic system what is dynamic system behavior what is deterministic chaos and, by extension, chaos in general what is logic what is course what is sun what is water what is fire nation what is oh sh-
-
Rutabaga.
-
Randomness exists, but it cannot be simulated - ever.
-
*holds up spork*
-
I'd need to do some studying to input anything about this topic.
-
What? I...[i]what?[/i]
-
I would argue that there is no such thing as order... Entropy is a valid measurement of randomness and things always become more disorderly and random as events occur. It's just difficult to wrap one's mind around it so we simply pretend it does not exist...
-
[quote]-No person can know all information[/quote] Oh they are wrong, so very wrong...
-
Edited by Ad Hoc: 1/16/2014 12:09:34 AMIt's hard to say. Every particle was "assigned" mass, direction, velocity, etc, during the Big Bang. By the rules of Newtonian Physics, you could hypothetically determine their future states, even down to the thoughts, actions, etc, of human beings. However, with the advent of Quantum Mechanics, scientists discovered it isn't that simple (duh). The problem is, we just don't know enough about it. A lot of stuff might not be as unpredictable as we think.
-
[quote]Randomness does not exist[/quote] oh my god they've discovered a more complete hidden variable theory?!
-
Edited by Sierra-Noble: 1/16/2014 8:52:23 AMOr randomness does exist and everything is random so it actually looks pre-determined. Philosophy can always be countered with more philosophy. And that you can take to the bank.
-
It's impossible to know for certain, bit determinism makes a great deal of sense.
-
And how did he deduce these things? If you tell me that x = 3 I can't agree or disagree.
-
Randomness my not exist... but [i]randomrosso [/i]does [spoiler]I'll leave[/spoiler]
-
I'll remember that every time I join a game and spawn directly under an airstrike that misses the rest of my team.
-
Great, another one of [i]those [/i] guys
-
For a while now, I've had this concept in my head that everything could be accurately predicted if infinite computational power was given. I often wonder if you knew the state of all particles and forces in the universe, could you predict the interactions between them infinitely? Obviously, this is impossible, but you get the idea.
-
On another note, "It is not possible to control others" and "It is not possible to influence others" not only counteract each other but also make little in the way of any sense at all. Because, for one thing, you can gain control over people by influencing them. If these two statements were true, there would be no laws, there wouldn't be even be any new things created by people since everybody draws inspiration from somewhere therefore making that an influence. In terms to the theory on people and their environment, it is a true thing in some regards. It's a two way street. The environment a young child is placed in ultimately determines what they will do when they are older and have more power and access to change their environment.
-
Le xDDD im s[i]oooooo[/i] random tho :P </3 <3 just me being randum ;D hehe :O
-
I posting again to remind you that you still haven't made your case. You're just assuming that we should agree with you for some reason.
-
Trying too hard
-
Edited by Obi Wan Stevobi: 1/16/2014 7:27:50 PM[quote] -Randomness does not exist[/quote] I agree. To suggest truly random things could happen would suggest that events can happen without cause. I don't believe this is possible, as it would pretty much undermine all of physics, math, and every type of science there is. Now, the cause and effect mechanics may be so complex we cannot determine a pattern, so it seems random to us, but just because we can't pinpoint a cause doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, the human brain. It is of such great complexity we may not know how a human will respond to a test. But not being able to map the complexity is not reason to think that their response isn't guided by electrons flowing from one neuron to the next millions of times. That would suggest that natural laws can fail. [quote]-It is not possible to control others -It is not possible to influence others[/quote] Nonsense. This assumes that there is no causality, which is not the case, ever. [quote]-A person defines his/her environment, while simultaneously, the environment defines the person[/quote] Obvious [quote]-No person can know all information[/quote] Obnoxiously obvious
-
POTATO FLYING IN WALTER WHITE TOILET WHILE NYAN CAT GETS INTO A FISTFIGHT WITH MICHAEL JACKSON'S GHOST!
-
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle just concerns measurement rather than the intrinsic nature of a system. Our model of quantum mechanics doesn't state that anything is fundamentally random, just that we can't predict it.
-
[quote]Wavefront collapse caused by external mechanisms can only be prevented if nothing in existence is external to the system being observed. [/quote]*Wave function collapse Actually it can be prevented by not measuring it with current methods. The only reason it collapses is because we measure it with photons which are on a similar scale so it causes significant disruption to the system when it interacts. If we were to find some way of measuring without messing things up like that then we'd be good, I doubt that will happen though. Point is that it's nothing to do with the fact that an observer exists, more to do with the fact that the only method of observation we have involves knocking the system into disarray.