Re: The Road with no Branches argument

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: 29 Oct 2004 15:06:47 -0500

Mike Oliver <mike_lists@verizon.net> wrote:
>Acme Diagnostics wrote:

> >>What exactly would be a "lawless" event, then?
> >
> > Well, given that we knew about some physical process:
> >
> > IF A THEN B (80% of the time)
> > IF B THEN C (80% of the time)
> >
> > we then observed:
> >
> > IF A THEN C (22% of the time, when it should be 64% of the time).
> >
> > and we somehow knew that there was no missing logic or
> > other events affecting the outcome, then logic, i.e. lawfulness,
> > would be violated.
>
>Is your "if...then" meant as material implication here?
>I.e. the kind defined by truth tables?

No. It's the IF...THEN... in probability books. IF we toss a
fair di, THEN two comes up 1/6th of the time." The di is
a physical object. The toss of the di is a physical process.

<snip objections based on truth tables, etc.>

>Observers in Dallas will "collapse the
>wavefunction" by seeing whether it rains or not.

You keep invoking our own POV. I keep repeating
that I agree with you 100% from the POV of "observers in Dallas."

<snip agreement QM might be deterministic>

>But there are severe obstacles, in any case, to *mechanistic*
>interpretations (or even "locally realistic" ones). Cf Bell's
>inequality, and the Aspect experiment that confirms it.

It seems like you are implying that, according to your knowledge
of QM things like Bell's Inequality, you assign higher
probability to indeterminism than determinism. If so, I can't
comment on that since I'm not an experienced physicist with the
deep understanding. Not that I have anything against you or
anyone else discussing same.

>Allowing the intervention of deorum ex machina, of course you
>can have determinism without mechanism. But what *can't* you
>have, in that case?

Don't know "deorum ex machina." I get one unhelpful google hit.

<snip agreement that a single coin toss is unpredictable>

>To you, is this "lawful"? Your answer should help me understand
>what you mean by the word.

I think our main confusion is about levels of description or
statistical outcomes on aggregates of events.

The spark plugs in your car can have a .5 P of firing on any
cycle; that is, you cannot predict whether they will fire in any
particlar case. At the same time, you can exactly calculate
horsepower, speed, direction, collisions, vector results, etc.

Sorry for insulting your intelligence. Of course there are lots
of gambling and statistics examples. My point is that you seem
to imply that the unpredictability of a single QM or coin-toss
event must "amplify" into the higher level of description (like
weather), whereas I observe that that is usually not the case.

<snip about my interest in defining where logic breaks down>

>I never claimed logic or probability broke down.

Well it's nice ot hear you say that. Perhaps we are just talking
about two different things entirely.

>Just what
>argument are you trying to refute?

I was not refuting any assertion in this post, just responding
casually to your remarks, also adding a little more for criticism.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: unjustifiable certainty vs faith.
    ... No you lost on the prediction of the coin toss. ... That's a bet on prediction and not a bet on truth. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: unjustifiable certainty vs faith.
    ... and never shall it be anything other than truth. ... the only thing you need faith for in that regard is having faith in ... because faith _is_ the only certainty. ... Just toss a coin in the air 1000 times and log the results. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: unjustifiable certainty vs faith.
    ... as being the truth, they you would be dead wrong. ... undtermined until the toss is competed. ... feasible landing results. ...   i notice stuff ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: unjustifiable certainty vs faith.
    ... Just toss a coin in the air 1000 times and log the results. ... i once lost over 20 coin tosses in a row, ... no need to toss it more than once to see that truth. ...
    (misc.writing)
Loading