Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I think you'd be interested in complexity theory, Doris. It includes things like Chaos Theory, and covers such questions. Basically, there's the assertion that a deterministic system can produce unexpected results via slight aberrations/changes in initial conditions through sufficiently complex stochastic processes.

Note that 'sufficiently complex' is deceptive, because as the Game of Life shows, the rules can be amazingly simple: http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

Don't get me wrong: the universe is non-deterministic, but it is non-deterministic in a statistically predictable way, and that's the key here; on the macroscopic scale it is, for all intents and purposes, deterministic, and Newtonian mechanics is sufficiently indistinguishable to be interchangeable with quantum mechanics in most large-scale applications (geodesics and astrophysics being notable exceptions).

That game is addictive for some reason.

It's an interesting concept. Googling nao. Looks like there's enough here to keep me occupied for about the next ten years so I'll keep at it, if only to help me argue with fundies

Seems to me that if the universe can be explained like this, then there's no need for a God to exist at all. I need to read a lot moar if I'm going to try to argue about it though so leaving it to the rest of you for now...

 

[Slidey]

Newtonian mechanics is not deterministic.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/index.html - Laymans terms
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/DomePSA2006.pdf - Scientific paper

Hmm, I was sceptical, so I tried cross-referencing it with some known, reliable 'encyclopaedia' on philosophy/determinism, such as Stanford's, and it had this to say:

In supertasks, one frequently encounters infinite numbers of particles, infinite (or unbounded) mass densities, and other dubious infinitary phenomena. Coupled with some of the other breakdowns of determinism in CM, one begins to get a sense that most, if not all, breakdowns of determinism rely on some combination of the following set of (physically) dubious mathematical notions: {infinite space; unbounded velocity; continuity; point-particles; singular fields}. The trouble is, it is difficult to imagine any recognizable physics (much less CM) that eschews everything in the set.

[...]

But curiously, this is not the only solution under standard Newtonian laws. The ball may also start into motion sliding down the dome — at any moment in time, and in any radial direction. This example displays “uncaused motion” without, Norton argues, any violation of Newton's laws, including the First Law. And it does not, unlike some supertask examples, require an infinity of particles. Still, many philosophers are uncomfortable with the moral Norton draws from his dome example, and point out reasons for questioning the dome's status as a Newtonian system (see e.g. Malament (2007)).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#ClaMec

And then: http://aeolist.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/korolev-on-nortons-dome/

So I'm still slightly sceptical, but nonetheless this is an interesting aspect of Newtonian Mechanics I was unaware of, and is further evidence for the incompleteness of determinism. Cheers for bringing this to my attention.

 

[Captin gay]

gotta find that dome and put a unit ball on it

THEN FILM IN A VACUUM FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY

 

[Mojohi]

You might be interested in this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY
Though I still agree with what you're saying... Macro-level our world is pretty much deterministic (as far as we currently know) but at the micro it is not.

I am a little bit confused with this youtube video. That does not happen in reality does it?? I am not good at this maths stuff. But he does say that the ball will not move for all eternity if the net force is the same. But then he says that there is another answer that the ball may move spontaneouslyat any time?? Does that discredit determinism or simply say that mathematically it is possible for another theory. Because in one scenario the ball will never move??

 

[Riet]

You might be interested in this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY
Though I still agree with what you're saying... Macro-level our world is pretty much deterministic (as far as we currently know) but at the micro it is not.

That was sweet. I read the paper too, awesome.

 

[Riet]

I am a little bit confused with this youtube video. That does not happen in reality does it?? I am not good at this maths stuff. But he does say that the ball will not move for all eternity if the net force is the same. But then he says that there is another answer that the ball may move spontaneouslyat any time?? Does that discredit determinism or simply say that mathematically it is possible for another theory. Because in one scenario the ball will never move??

Using common assumptions and without (seemingly) violating any laws of newtonian mechanics, it shows amd example of newtonian mechanics being indeterminate.

 

[Mojohi]

Using common assumptions and without (seemingly) violating any laws of newtonian mechanics, it shows amd example of newtonian mechanics being indeterminate.

ok. But does it happen in reality? Is there an example where this happens other then in maths?

 

[Slidey]

I am a little bit confused with this youtube video. That does not happen in reality does it?? I am not good at this maths stuff. But he does say that the ball will not move for all eternity if the net force is the same. But then he says that there is another answer that the ball may move spontaneouslyat any time?? Does that discredit determinism or simply say that mathematically it is possible for another theory. Because in one scenario the ball will never move??

You are absolutely correct: this scenario is not reproducible in reality.

However, this matters little, as Newtonian mechanics isn't reproducible in reality, either.

The point here is that even as an idealistic, 'complete' approximation of macroscopic world phenomena, Newtonian mechanics cannot really be considered fully deterministic.

As you are probably aware however, the currently accepted mechanics of reality is Quantum Mechanics, which does discredit determinism, by virtue of being non-deterministic (see Bell's Theorem and Uncertainty Principle above).

 

[Riet]

ok. But does it happen in reality? Is there an example where this happens other then in maths?

No but lots of examples commonly used in physics don't occur in reality. Read the paper, there's no point me paraphrasing this.

 

[Mojohi]

No but lots of examples commonly used in physics don't occur in reality. Read the paper, there's no point me paraphrasing this.

It just seems that this bell theory is an attempt to move around determinism. One of the articles says this...

"This time-reversal trick is powerful, but we must be cautious not to overrate it. It is best used just to make the acausal behavior plausible".

If determinism appears to be correct at the macroscale but not at the microscale, could that be linked to our own inability to undertstand subatomic particles.

 

[Riet]

Bell theory applies to quantum mechanics, this is referring to newtonian mechanics.

 

[Slidey]

It just seems that this bell theory is an attempt to move around determinism. One of the articles says this...

"This time-reversal trick is powerful, but we must be cautious not to overrate it. It is best used just to make the acausal behavior plausible".

If determinism appears to be correct at the macroscale but not at the microscale, could that be linked to our own inability to undertstand subatomic particles.

Stop trying to defend a scientifically incorrect theory. You're starting to sound like a Creationist or something.

Quantum Mechanics governs the microscopic world but it ALSO governs the macroscopic world. You need to realise that determinism is the human mind's approximation here, not the other way around.

We have no such inability to understand subatomic particles. There's a very rigorous and sound theory of subatomic particles and it's called, wait for it... QUANTUM MECHANICS. It makes testable predictions which have been verified time and time again. And you know what else it does? It tells us that Newtonian ('deterministic') mechanics is only an approximation.

I mean, for heaven's sake, they've even made working quantum computers - computers that work based on the assumption that the nanoscopic world is statistical, not deterministic.

Please, read some more. I have no problem with you being ignorant of some aspects of science, as we all surely are. I also have no problem with you asking questions here. But I do not enjoy repeating myself because you do not want to let go of tradition.

Some references for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#QuaMec

 

[Mojohi]

Stop trying to defend a scientifically incorrect theory. You're starting to sound like a Creationist or something.


Wat the hell. Creationist!! Look around you for a second. Does anything appear to work randomly. Everything is affected by something else. Give me an example where it doesnt happen. There are problems in any theory, which is why they simply remain theory.

 

[Slidey]

Thanks for the starting points. Well appreciated as always!

One of the most beautiful examples of complexity theory, and mathematics in general, which I have found in real life is this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Textile_cone.JPG

The cone literally applies a cellular automata in the creation of its shell pattern.

For reference: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/CA_rule110s.png

Cellular automata are a part of complexity theory. They're actually computationally equivalent to neural nets and various other optimisation algorithms (include evolutionary computation like genetic algorithms), but structured as they are offer a unique insight into complexity theory, as the Game of Life demonstrates. That is to say: they're all Universal Turing Machines.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction-diffusion
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spatial_automata
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_dynamics

 

[Mojohi]

Ok well im off. Thanks for the insight into all this stuff. Ill look into it more.

 

[Slidey]

Stop trying to defend a scientifically incorrect theory. You're starting to sound like a Creationist or something.

Wat the hell. Creationist!! Look around you for a second. Does anything appear to work randomly.

Yep; the universe does - quantum mechanics.

Go look up Schroedinger's Cat or the Everett interpretation of QM.

Everything is affected by something else. Give me an example where it doesnt happen.

Easy. Radioactive decay.

Snap. Burn. Zing.

As discussed above, the decay of an unstable nucleus is entirely random and it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.

This is the entire basis for the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment.

There are problems in any theory, which is why they simply remain theory.

That's what Creationists say - it just shows an ignorance of science.

Theories in science are called 'theories' because there is no way to test every single case in the universe. They are, however, never wrong. If a theory in science is found to by wrong in any way, it is replaced. This is exactly what happened with Newtonian - deterministic - mechanics. Thank you.

What a scientific theory can claim, is that it makes testable predictions, of which none have been proven wrong, but must also eventually be proven correct (or move into the realm of metaphysics).

If somebody posits something to the scientific community which may or may not be correct, this is called a hypothesis. A theory implies that there are no known counterexamples in reality to that specific mathematical model. Of course, what you, and Creationists, fail to realise is that some things maintain the name 'theory' even after they've been falsified. This is a quirk of language, not science.

And I'll add that complexity theory isn't a scientific theory, it's a mathematical theory. The difference is that mathematical theories are always 100% correct and non-falsifiable, by virtue of the Platonic nature of mathematics. And, tangentially, it is exactly this property which gives so much weight to the theory of evolution; evolution itself is a mathematical optimisation problem which cannot be falsified.

 

[Riet]

I love you neil

Your cat pretty much owns.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Things coming from other things etc are concepts which only make 'common sense' within the world of causation/time. At time=0 to speak of such things is completely irrational.

The idea that there has never been time is illogical.

There are other options but I'm leaning more towards 3, our universe has always been there in some sense (if not our universe then some universe which spawned ours down the line).

That is irrational. For someone who claims to be so logical, you like to keep a lot of bullshit information so that you can keep trying to justify your conclusions.

IMO you should stop calling people 'retards' it just makes you look rather foolish... No one is impressed by your ability to lather your weak arguments with childish insults.

I called one person a retard. Weak arguments? Your responses to my 'weak arguments' are typical atheist crap like I expected. Stop conjuring up mysticism/wishful thinking and accept that something coming out of nothing and that something has always existed is illogical, no matter what time frame it is in.

The entire concept of "coming" even from "nothing" is rooted in time. At time=0 things do not 'come' into existence, they are.

So then, back to square one. Why was the universe here? Magic? It had to come from somewhere.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

The idea that there has never been time is illogical.

Nobody ever said that there has never been time. Time has existed since it began. There hasn't always been time (at least this is my understanding), but that's not the same thing as saying time has never existed.

So then, back to square one. Why was the universe here? Magic? It had to come from somewhere.

We don't know exactly how the universe came into being any more than theists do, it just so happens that the explanations we have found thus far seem to have more solid foundations than saying "God is responsible", seeing as how we can't prove God even exists.

 

[Enteebee]

The idea that there has never been time is illogical.

...what?

That is irrational. For someone who claims to be so logical, you like to keep a lot of bullshit information so that you can keep trying to justify your conclusions.

How is it irrational? I've rationally explained why I think such a thing is possible...

something coming out of nothing and that something has always existed is illogical, no matter what time frame it is in. ... So then, back to square one. Why was the universe here? Magic? It had to come from somewhere.

I don't see how you... quote my answer to your question and then... repeat the question without discussing my answer. I've explained to you that it isn't a matter of something coming from nothing, at time=0 things don't "come" they just "are". There's more to it than that, but unless you're going to provide any sort of a rebuttle I see no reason to move on.