God doesn't play dice: cause and effect

[socratus]

God doesn't play dice: cause and effect
(causality and dependence)

Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didn’t accept
the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought
that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some
real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation
probabilistic. Thinking so - Einstein wasn’t alone.
P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between
cause and effect is ‘ intellectual lechery’. And Lorentz,
de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the
micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered
that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they
can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible
to describe not only probabilistically but in details too.
#
But other group of scientists didn’t agree with them.
Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must
refuse to describe particle’s behaviour to the smallest detail.
Here is enough to use Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Most scientists agreed with them saying: ‘There isn’t better
interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg’s ’.
From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation
and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without
success. And at last Feynman said: ‘I think I can safely say
that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’ And somebody
agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can
accustomed to it.
Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world
and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks,
dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions
and new symmetries . . .and etc)
#
I try to understand the situation.
1.
We have dualistic particle as a ‘ math point’.
2.
We have two kinds of space:
a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow -
b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t)
3.
The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point
to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t).
#
This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved.
Is this situation hard puzzle ?
Isn’t clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D )
and its shadow – (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle – problem ?
But these categories of being scientists try no debate now.
Why?
Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . .
. . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I don’t know.
#
I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting
book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation.
I must reread it again.
Where is it? Here it is:
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: ‘The Praise of Folly.’
===============.
All the best.
Socratus.

[socratus]

Cause & Effect: Determinism & Probability.
1.
Classical physics.
Between cause & effect the determining principle acts.
Is this principle correct?
The classical experiments say: it is correct.
2
Quantum physics.
Between cause & effect only probabilistic or
statistical principle acts.
Is this principle correct?
The quantum experiments say: it is correct.
3.
Why are they, both, correct?
===========.
Socratus.

[Jack]

God doesn't play dice: cause and effect
(causality and dependence)

Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didn’t accept
the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought
that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some
real process is hidden.

I surely hate to be at odds with Einstein but in this I think he is way off base.

As far as I can tell, cause and effect is the universal law of the universe.

Cause and effect makes total logical sense and is completely predicable by man if he is in possession of all the facts.

[John]

Doesn't that put you in agreement with Einstein then? He didn't like quantum theory because it was problematic explaining it in terms of cause and effect, which he was commited to.

[Jack]

Thanks John for clarifying Einstein's thought for me as I'm not real clear on science lingo.

Jack

[socratus]

Comment by AAF:
In any case, in every concrete example of 'cause & effect',
that one can think of, there is nothing acting or should be
acting between cause & effect, except of course the cause itself.
/ AAF /
========
Between cause & effect sometime Genghis Khan or Alexander
the Great acts, sometime Shakespeare or Paganini acts . . . . .
Without Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, Shakespeare or
Paganini or any other person the situation looks paradoxical.
=====.
Socratus.

[Metadigital]

Relativity physics and quantum physics have since the beginning disagreed on a great many thing, yet they paradoxically both make accurate predictions. How can this be so?

The philosophy of science of the 20th century really focused on the contradictions in physics. How could two such opposing views both make accurate predictions? Some, like Alfred North Whitehead, attempted to create a metaphysics to marry the ideas. Thomas Kuhn created the ideas of scientific paradigms, which are our shifting models of understanding nature. All the while, physics was not continuing to unite, but instead fractured further. Nonlinear thermodynamics appeared and so did the theory of chaos. Both of these held deep contradictions with both relativity and quantum physics, yet can also made accurate predictions.

Now we have not just two, but maybe three or four differing interpretations of space and the entities that exist within. We have both a stochastic and and deterministic universe, depending on what model you use. We have both particles and waves within the same entities. Our concept of time bends to what equation we're using. Sometimes it's constant everywhere, other times relative. All the while physicists are getting on stage and pronouncing to the world the uniting of physics and how some new discovery (whether the Higgs boson or the God particle) will answer all their questions and create a Theory of Everything.

I personally don't see a solution soon. Even if we do find some new fundamental entity, we're still going to have to go back and reexamine our paradigm to see how it fits in to things. Our concept of time, matter, determinism, etc may be horribly out of date. Even with the data, we will probably need a new vocabulary, if not a new language, to represent the workings of nature in. Of course, if you agree with Kuhn's concepts of paradigms, you'll probably think that the new model won't be any better or worse at representing nature than the previous ones. I'm not sure I'm that skeptical, but I am skeptical enough to be of the opinion that we probably aren't going to find a single particle or entity that alone answers all these questions for us.

[socratus]

Relativity physics and quantum physics have since the beginning disagreed on a great many thing, yet they paradoxically both make accurate predictions. How can this be so?

The philosophy of science of the 20th century really focused on the contradictions in physics. How could two such opposing views both make accurate predictions? Some, like Alfred North Whitehead, attempted to create a metaphysics to marry the ideas. Thomas Kuhn created the ideas of scientific paradigms, which are our shifting models of understanding nature. All the while, physics was not continuing to unite, but instead fractured further. Nonlinear thermodynamics appeared and so did the theory of chaos. Both of these held deep contradictions with both relativity and quantum physics, yet can also made accurate predictions.

Now we have not just two, but maybe three or four differing interpretations of space and the entities that exist within. We have both a stochastic and and deterministic universe, depending on what model you use. We have both particles and waves within the same entities. Our concept of time bends to what equation we're using. Sometimes it's constant everywhere, other times relative. All the while physicists are getting on stage and pronouncing to the world the uniting of physics and how some new discovery (whether the Higgs boson or the God particle) will answer all their questions and create a Theory of Everything.

I personally don't see a solution soon. Even if we do find some new fundamental entity, we're still going to have to go back and reexamine our paradigm to see how it fits in to things. Our concept of time, matter, determinism, etc may be horribly out of date. Even with the data, we will probably need a new vocabulary, if not a new language, to represent the workings of nature in. Of course, if you agree with Kuhn's concepts of paradigms, you'll probably think that the new model won't be any better or worse at representing nature than the previous ones. I'm not sure I'm that skeptical, but I am skeptical enough to be of the opinion that we probably aren't going to find a single particle or entity that alone answers all these questions for us.

[socratus]

Relativity physics and quantum physics have since the beginning disagreed on a great many thing, yet they paradoxically both make accurate predictions. How can this be so?

The philosophy of science of the 20th century really focused on the contradictions in physics. How could two such opposing views both make accurate predictions? Some, like Alfred North Whitehead, attempted to create a metaphysics to marry the ideas. Thomas Kuhn created the ideas of scientific paradigms, which are our shifting models of understanding nature. All the while, physics was not continuing to unite, but instead fractured further. Nonlinear thermodynamics appeared and so did the theory of chaos. Both of these held deep contradictions with both relativity and quantum physics, yet can also made accurate predictions.

Now we have not just two, but maybe three or four differing interpretations of space and the entities that exist within. We have both a stochastic and and deterministic universe, depending on what model you use. We have both particles and waves within the same entities. Our concept of time bends to what equation we're using. Sometimes it's constant everywhere, other times relative. All the while physicists are getting on stage and pronouncing to the world the uniting of physics and how some new discovery (whether the Higgs boson or the God particle) will answer all their questions and create a Theory of Everything.

I personally don't see a solution soon. Even if we do find some new fundamental entity, we're still going to have to go back and reexamine our paradigm to see how it fits in to things. Our concept of time, matter, determinism, etc may be horribly out of date. Even with the data, we will probably need a new vocabulary, if not a new language, to represent the workings of nature in. Of course, if you agree with Kuhn's concepts of paradigms, you'll probably think that the new model won't be any better or worse at representing nature than the previous ones. I'm not sure I'm that skeptical, but I am skeptical enough to be of the opinion that we probably aren't going to find a single particle or entity that alone answers all these questions for us.

Even if we do find some new fundamental entity, we're still going
to have to go back and reexamine our paradigm to see how it fits
in to things.
/ Metadigital /
==========.
We must go back and reexamine our paradigm.
Which paradigm?
On my opinion, at first we must understand the conception of Vacuum.
Why?
Because Vacuum is hidden in every part of Physics.
Because without Vacuum the Physics looks paradoxical.
======.
S.

[Metadigital]

We must go back and reexamine our paradigm.
Which paradigm?
On my opinion, at first we must understand the conception of Vacuum.
Why?
Because Vacuum is hidden in every part of Physics.
Because without Vacuum the Physics looks paradoxical.
======.
S.

The concept of "vacuum" and reality don't seem to perfectly align. What I mean is that the vacuum is a conceptual model that we place on reality to simplify and understand it, even if no true vacuum actually exists in nature. What we're trying to understand is nature, as I understand it, not some theoretical concept.

It's the difference in contemplating the number 0 and a very small number, like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. The zero is a mystery, almost a paradox, but it doesn't represent anything that's actually in nature. It's a product of our mathematical system. In logic, the same could be said of tautologies and contradictions. These things don't actually exist in nature, but are a product of our system of logic. The same is true for the concept of a vacuum, which is a physical "zero" or "contradiction".

I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about the concept, I rather enjoy the Eastern metaphysics of nothingness. Nonetheless, it's still metaphysics. What I'm saying is that we should examine our concepts, first, then turn to nature. We only understand nature through simplistic models, and if these models don't fit perfectly over nature, then our understanding of nature will remain incomplete and we'll have to deal with the resulting anomalies and paradoxes that emerge.

[socratus]

#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./

[jBrenton]

Socrates was the best and most hottest girl to ever live. If he were alive, I would be his only choice for a date.

Let me see here:

God doesn't play dice? Think about the physics of einstein: He concieves of an "event concieved temporally" so that it can have "spatial deminsions" or something which relates or is "concieved" or something. So I don't know the real arguement here.

Positive assersion to speed up progress in debate here,
jbrenton

[bytesplicer]

If laws can be found that apply to the dice in question then it's a win for cause and effect!

Considering it all from the point of view of energy, the conservation law seems to apply at all scales. While there is some evidence of 'temporary' violations at quantum levels this could be simply a consequence of our inability to measure the smaller scales. Given the nature of energy decay and spreading, it is not inconceivable that particles exist below the current threshold we observe ('quantum foam'), and that their interactions would lead to weird and unpredictable effects when viewed from our scale. Combinations of these particles could lead to the temporary formation of larger particles that 'pop' into our view as apparent 'virtual' particles (virtual, because we can't observe the smaller particles, thus the virtual particle would appear to us from nowhere). Like looking at the stars, if we were unaware of the planets in orbit we would observe their effects upon the stars as inexplicable and seemingly random. From this we could probably build some statistical models giving the probability of 'wobble' in any particular star, but until we could 'see' the planets, directly or indirectly, we could probably go no further.

In a nutshell, the energy laws, which seem to apply to all scales both large and small, do not really allow for randomness, we observe apparent randomness simply due to the nature of complexity and the limits of our ability to measure. Any question of randomness really has to address this, because if things start to act in a truly random fashion then energy conservation may be in trouble (or it's scope may be severely reduced). The only possibility of randomness I can see is if energy has multiple choices of where to 'flow', i.e with the same distance and same energy configuration (plausible at such small energy levels?) energy may sometimes have to make a random choice of where to go among equally 'desirable' possibilities. As with my quip about the dice above, the mechanism that results in this may be deterministic itself, once more removing randomness from the equation.

My personal belief is that the energy laws apply 'all the way down' and that, as energy inexorably decays there will be smaller and smaller quanta between (or even within) the observable larger particles, always beyond what we can measure directly, but nevertheless representing a large amount of energy overall, certainly enough to be felt at larger scales. Dark energy/matter, and/or the apparent expansion of space, could be attributed to large amounts of energy that has fallen below our viewing threshold. While it may not really be random or probabilistic we may never have enough of the information to see it as anything but, energy decay is an ongoing process, and we are always playing catchup. If energy (and hence most of science) doesn't end up working the way we think it does, then anything goes really. Otherwise, cause and effect is the winner, though still too complex for us to work it all out.

[socratus]

Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
==.
The scientific laws are already there in Nature.
The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after themselves.
Maybe these laws were there by chance, but maybe these laws were created
and set in motion which explain the evolution of Nature.
If the Universe was created by chance – we don't need consciousness.
But if the Universe was developed by way of evolution
( from simple to complex ) it means it needed consciousness
for its development.
And then we have a question:
How and where was the first germ of consciousness born?
#
Can evolution be possible by chance?
No, because “ The second law of thermodynamics “ says the Universe
as whole goes to cold equilibrium ( T=0K) , to regress, to death.
So, by chance evolution is impossible.
Evolution means progress. But if evolution is progress
it must have consciousness to make this progress possible.
If it so, we have an astonishing situation.
In 1900 , Max Planck , trying to save the Universe from ice age discovered
Quantum of Light. This Quantum of Light saves the Universe from
extinction, gives life and it means takes part in the Cosmic evolution.
Question:
Does Quantum of Light have consciousness?
#
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question ' What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken
/ Albert Einstein /
#
"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive
solution could provide considerable elucidation.
What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?"
/ Max Planck. Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920 /

This question still waits for its answer.
=======================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
=============================.

[John]

Can evolution be possible by chance?
No, because “ The second law of thermodynamics “ says the Universe
as whole goes to cold equilibrium ( T=0K) , to regress, to death.
So, by chance evolution is impossible.

How do you know what's happening in the universe as a whole? applying the second law of thermodynamics to what we observe on Earth neglects the fact that Earth is not a closed system and we don't know what's happening elsewhere. Besides, even random patterns through up order within them at times.