Is Everything a Computer? A Metaphorical Look at the Universe

  • Thread starter ogb p
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Computer
In summary: The Uncertainty Principle does not contradict determinism in the sense that it is impossible to predict the future with any certainty. What it does is rule out a specific form of determinism, which is the idea that the future is already known and just a matter of calculation.
  • #36
by Mentat:
As far as philosophy of science goes, russ_waters is right, the particle is literally not in anyone place at any given time.

Its easy make declaritive statements that ignor alternative perspectives... I challlenge you to find a logical error in my criticisms of russ_water's intitial position. The trajectory of his thoughts are indeterminable from his lack of response.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #37
Although QM is certainly fascinating and deeply weird I think we should be cautious about the conclusions we draw since it is an incomlete theory and not really understood by anyone. Perhaps the insights gained from a deeper theory (like M-Theory) will shed some virtual photons on it.

Of course, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't look for alternative explanations though Ogb. What sort of name is that anyway?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
I agree with the idea that we shouldn't start relying our metaphysical beliefs on Qm just yet...

But then, I'm not a Qm Physicist, so I could just be biased.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by ogb p
by Mentat:

Its easy make declaritive statements that ignor alternative perspectives... I challlenge you to find a logical error in my criticisms of russ_water's intitial position. The trajectory of his thoughts are indeterminable from his lack of response.


I will reply to your criticisms of russ in a moment, but first I want to point out that I wasn't saying there wasn't any determinism in the subatomic realm. However, the basic mathematics (the basic theory altogether, really) of QM describe all those "weird" phenomena in terms of this assumption (that reality is probabilities).

I also never said that no scientists believed in the deterministic idea of subatomic particles. I said that the philosophy of the science of QM, as it currently stands, doesn't allow this, but instead relies on superpositions of the particle. It's been this way ever since the EPR experiments.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Is this what you are referring to, ogb?

Originally posted by ogb p
Ok, after more thought I will agree with you that HUP does not state that it is based on the limitations of human beings. I did not mean to say that, but after re-reading my post I can easily see how it could be interpreted that way.

What I meant to say is that HUP does not contradict the possiblity of other theorectical models, including deterministic ones, because it is a theory created by humans and verified by experimental data that is ultimately collected by humans.

Who else did you expect to formulate the theory, aliens? :wink:

Besides, it was discovered by humans, not "created by them.

If you begin with the assumption that there are objects in the universe whose exact position in time and space are unknowable to humans, then the next logical step in dealing with those objects would be to create a mathematical model in which exact points don't exist.

There is, of course, the wave mechanics...which, IIRC, deals with the probabilities of a particle's position or positions (as in the case of entanglement).

Determinism, as theory, is still alive because the Classical Model of Physics, which is deterministic, is still used extensively in engineering and mechanics; there are many scales on which quantum effects and relativity are not worth computing.

They may not be "worth computing", but they are still real. And the probability still exists, however negligible, that some enormous bit of matter will suddenly disappear due to quantum uncertainty on the part of all of its constituent particles.
 
  • #41
I also never said that no scientists believed in the deterministic idea of subatomic particles. I said that the philosophy of the science of QM, as it currently stands, doesn't allow this, but instead relies on superpositions of the particle. It's been this way ever since the EPR experiments.

AFAIK,

This was the original Copenhagen Interpretation, or one 'take' on the CI - depending how you interpret the word 'observation'. The CI stuck, because it was the original and it was shockingly weird and well... mystical-sounding. There are many interpretion which explain QM equally well, but avoid the whole 'human-minds-collapse-the-wave-function' thing and the paradoxes and begged questions it leads to. This doesn't mean these other interpretations aren't weird in their own ways.

I think the current understanding of a superposition of states is that if it interacts with other particles it will collapse, thus the collapse happens when it hits a detection screen, it doesn't wait until 'a human mind perceives it'.

But I might be wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Originally posted by Mumeishi
AFAIK,

This was the original Copenhagen Interpretation, or one 'take' on the CI - depending how you interpret the word 'observation'. The CI stuck, because it was the original and it was shockingly weird and well... mystical-sounding. There are many interpretion which explain QM equally well, but avoid the whole 'human-minds-collapse-the-wave-function' thing and the paradoxes and begged questions it leads to. This doesn't mean these other interpretations aren't weird in their own ways.

I think the current understanding of a superposition of states is that if it interacts with other particles it will collapse, thus the collapse happens when it hits a detection screen, it doesn't wait until 'a human mind perceives it'.

But I might be wrong.

You are certainly right, as far as every book I've ever read on it goes...but then I've avoided most books that seemed "new-agish" to me, which might have contained other, valid, viewpoints.

The thing is, the "human-minds-collapse-wave-functions" isn't just unnecessary for QM (since the mathematics works just fine without conscious observation, AFAIK), but it is a seriously flawed argument (as I attempted to explain in this thread (along with very good posts from you and Tom), and many other threads.

Basically, if consciousness is a result of action of the brain, and the brain is composed of cells (which are composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles), then a conscious activity (being an action of many of these cells) shouldn't be at all coherent at the subatomic level. IOW, a neuron is way too big to be noticed as "different" at the subatomic level.
 
  • #43
well, it just shows that the whole 'materialist' explanation of consciousness must be wrong then. :wink:
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Mumeishi
well, it just shows that the whole 'materialist' explanation of consciousness must be wrong then. :wink:

Don't even play like that, man! :wink:
 
  • #45
LOL! Well if you are 'biased towards materialism' you were bound to get your fingers burnt by 'the truth' eventually.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Mumeishi
LOL! Well if you are 'biased towards materialism' you were bound to get your fingers burnt by 'the truth' eventually.

What "truth"? Don't do this to me, man .
 
  • #47
You know... THE Truth - the one that cannot be apprehended by reason alone.

[squeak, squeak, squeak - sound of me winding you up]
 
  • #48
oh yeah...i've heard about that before. It all the rage in middle england in the 14th century...
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Mentat

I also never said that no scientists believed in the deterministic idea of subatomic particles.

Thank you for clarifying that point.

Who else did you expect to formulate the theory, aliens?

Funny, but i meant human theories are open to human error.

Besides, it was discovered by humans, not "created by them.

There is a trickly bit of semantics here. I consider the process of model building to be creative. But there is also a process of 'discovery' when data is collected and compared to the models; In the pocess of data collection it is 'discovered' wheter a model is truly reflect nature. String Theory, for example, is at this point it is still just a mathematical creation. But, if enough data is collected to verify it, it is possible that it could be 'discovered' to be more than just math.

They may not be "worth computing", but they are still real.

I think the basic difference between you and russ's position and mine is that I consider scientific theories as being valuable because of their pragmatic usefulness whereas you suggest that it is about what is [absolutely] real.

But my main dissagreement with russ was his initial statement that "determinism is dead". As studies in Dynamical Systems and Chaos Theory, and in books like Wolfram's New Science, it has been shown that not just probablistic, but full blown choatic systems can be modeled using a few very simple determinist formulas. Determinism isn't just alive: its making a comeback. The site http://digitalphysics.org/ that Glenn provided is also a good example.
 
  • #50
Wooohoo! Go determinism!

(Closet determinist)

(truth being: I can't see how it could be any other way)
 
  • #51
I can't see how it could be any other way

LOL
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Mumeishi
You know... THE Truth - the one that cannot be apprehended by reason alone.

[squeak, squeak, squeak - sound of me winding you up]

Foul Play! 30-yard penalty and an atomic wedgy!
 
  • #53
Originally posted by ogb p
Funny, but i meant human theories are open to human error.

Sure enough, except there are no "human theories"...

Just lettin' that sink in for a while...

Theories are formulated as dictated by the Scientific Method. That a human is using the Method, and no some alien, is irrelevant. The Method is only subject to logical error, and new theories formed therein are subject only to either being modified or being replaced.

There is a trickly bit of semantics here. I consider the process of model building to be creative. But there is also a process of 'discovery' when data is collected and compared to the models; In the pocess of data collection it is 'discovered' wheter a model is truly reflect nature. String Theory, for example, is at this point it is still just a mathematical creation. But, if enough data is collected to verify it, it is possible that it could be 'discovered' to be more than just math.

We are building a "model" to explain that which was discovered.

I think the basic difference between you and russ's position and mine is that I consider scientific theories as being valuable because of their pragmatic usefulness whereas you suggest that it is about what is [absolutely] real.

I never said anything was absolutely real, merely that that is what Science assumes (and, by that, I mean that Science assumes the ability to discover Inductive validity through empirical data, gathered from the "actual reality").

But my main dissagreement with russ was his initial statement that "determinism is dead". As studies in Dynamical Systems and Chaos Theory, and in books like Wolfram's New Science, it has been shown that not just probablistic, but full blown choatic systems can be modeled using a few very simple determinist formulas. Determinism isn't just alive: its making a comeback. The site http://digitalphysics.org/ that Glenn provided is also a good example.

Alright, I'll agree that it isn't wise to just say that some idea "is dead", but (IMO) it wouldn't need to "come back" unless it was at some point "gone" :wink:.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Another God
Wooohoo! Go determinism!

(Closet determinist)

(truth being: I can't see how it could be any other way)

LOL!

Are you saying you've come "out of the closet", now?
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Mentat
Sure enough, except there are no "human theories"...

How about "human knowledge"? Let's see how it fits with your arguements:

[knowledge] can be discovered using the Scientific Method. That a human [has certain knowledge], and not some alien, is irrelevant. [Knowledge] is only subject to logical error, and new [knowledge discovered using the Scientific Method is] subject only to either being modified or being replaced.

Therefore there is no "human knowledge".

You might rightfully complain that this an unfair substitution, but I am only trying to make a semantic point: when we say "human knowledge" what we really mean is "[what] humans [have] knowledge [of]". And when I say "human theories", I really mean "[things] humans [have] theories [about]". Knowledge and Theories can be known or formulated by aliens (and there is nothing wrong with the hypothetical idea of aliens:wink:). Furthermore, knowledge and theories have no dependence on whether humans (or aliens) exist. (I think this was your underlying point which I agree with.)

We are building a "model" to explain that which was discovered.

This is a difference between Mathematicians and Physiscts: Mathematicians build models for the pure pleasure of building models, and they think to themselves, "let someone else deal with the tedious process of figuring out which ones are useful in the 'actual world'".

I never said anything was absolutely real, merely that that is what Science assumes (and, by that, I mean that Science assumes the ability to discover Inductive validity through empirical data, gathered from the "actual reality").

This is an excellent description of the metaphysics of Science. A-god did a good job classifying this thread.

Alright, I'll agree that it isn't wise to just say that some idea "is dead", but (IMO) it wouldn't need to "come back" unless it was at some point "gone" :wink:.

Please forgive me for one last bit of semantic nit picking: Determinism was 'down', but not out (or "gone"). Fate brought it back :wink:.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Of course, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't look for alternative explanations though Ogb. What sort of name is that anyway?
[/quote]

my handle is just intitials. I relized recently that the letters could be rearranged to spell God. but they could also spell Dog. Either way I had no ideas about god or dogs when I choose it (All the good handles are alwayse taken so I get frustrated fast and stop trying to get a cool handle.)
 
  • #57
Originally posted by ogb p

my handle is just intitials. I relized recently that the letters could be rearranged to spell God. but they could also spell Dog. Either way I had no ideas about god or dogs when I choose it (All the good handles are alwayse taken so I get frustrated fast and stop trying to get a cool handle.)
actually, there is no d in your name.
You could spell bog, but that's probably not a good idea. Gob is also less appealing
 
  • #58
Originally posted by ogb p
How about "human knowledge"? Let's see how it fits with your arguements:

[knowledge] can be discovered using the Scientific Method.

Knowledge is not discovered, it is held. Our "knowledge" is a collection of our beliefs and preconceptions.

But I see your point now (from having read the rest of the paragraph, which I did not quote), and I pretty much agree.

This is a difference between Mathematicians and Physiscts: Mathematicians build models for the pure pleasure of building models, and they think to themselves, "let someone else deal with the tedious process of figuring out which ones are useful in the 'actual world'".

This is true, but physicists are the ones who make observations, and then reach into the mathematicians bag of goodies to see if there's anything that fits.

This is an excellent description of the metaphysics of Science. A-god did a good job classifying this thread.

Yeah, it's basically a matter of both it's "metaphysics" and its epistemology, and so it fits :smile:.

Please forgive me for one last bit of semantic nit picking: Determinism was 'down', but not out (or "gone"). Fate brought it back :wink:.

Very nice.
 

Similar threads

  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
726
  • DIY Projects
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top