Re: The Road with no Branches argument

From: Mike Oliver (mike_lists_at_verizon.net)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:30:10 -0500

Acme Diagnostics wrote:
> Mike Oliver <mike_lists@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Acme Diagnostics wrote:
>>><snip agreement QM might be deterministic>
>>
>>Eh? I never agreed any such thing. The evolution of
>>the wavefunction is deterministic, yes.
>
>
> I apologize for being sloppy. We did not agree on that. I stand
> corrected.
>
> <unsnip>
>
>>>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.
>
> </unsnip>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>How do you "observe" that, exactly?
>
>
> How do I observe my car? How do I observe gambling
> outcomes? How do I observe statistical results?

I misunderstood what you were getting at here--I didn't
see the connection you were trying to make between the
"unsnipped" para and the subsequent one. Still not
sure I do. But the answer to what I now think you're
asking is clear--we know that chaotic systems like weather
amplify small effects, whereas in systems that simply "sum up"
random events, they tend to cancel each other out, which is
why you can roughly predict how long it will take you
to get somewhere in your apparently ready-for-the-junk-heap
car.

> This is the second time you've ignored this point about
> unpredictability of single events becoming predictable in the
> aggregate or higher level of description. Now I can only
> surmise that that's because it blows your "amplification" theory
> to smitherines. Not that it never happens, but you leave standing
> the case that there is no basis for your opinion that it always
> happens making the "whole world indeterministic."

I certainly never said that *all* quantum indeterminism is
amplified to an observable level. The whole world is indeterministic
in the sense that it's indeterministic in its most fundamental
interactions. That certainly doesn't preclude the possibility
of certain complex systems behaving in an approximately deterministic
way. Other systems don't, and *they're* the ones that display
the more fundamental truth about the world, that it's indeterministic.

>>If you could [predict the weather], it would be a refutation of my claims.
>
> Yeah, if I could refute unfalsifiable claims I'd be real famous.

Why is it unfalsifiable? Come up with a model that predicts the
weather, and use it to actually predict the weather. Falsification
accomplished.

> I've already refuted your claims: "Weather is
> indeterminate. The whole world is indeterminate." You have no
> proof, no rigorous basis, or as it now appears any basis at all.
>
> You then changed your assertions to an opinion or belief about
> indeterminism.

I changed nothing. I continue to assert that weather, and the
whole world, are indeterministic. I've explained why, and
made a prima facie case.

> You keep adding the quantum state of the universe to your weather
> example, set it in the future, invoke anthropomorphic observers
> in Dallas, etc. which is unresponsive to "the whole world is
> indeterminate" requiring an objective POV.

Still don't know what you're talking about with this POV stuff.
What's an "objective POV"? Do you agree that, one year from
tonight in Dallas, it will be an objective question whether
or not it's raining? Maybe you're taking the point of view
that, even after we look in the box, Schroedinger's cat is
still neither completely alive nor completely dead--rather,
*we* become a quantum superposition of observers that see it
alive, and ones that see it dead. Is that what you mean?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... >> have no contention regarding weather. ... supposed quantum indeterminism is "necessarily" "amplified" to ... It seemed that you were making a "lawful universe" argument ... >to allow that events that follow a probability distribution ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... >>The claim that the weather is indeterministic is falsifiable. ... let alone indeterminism. ... >>to what is actually going on, predictability to what you can know. ... So from our POV things like QM and weather ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... >> weather), whereas I observe that that is usually not the case. ... How do I observe my car? ... an untestable example doesn't support your opinion. ... proof, no rigorous basis, or as it now appears any basis at all. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... > weather prediction several times, i.e. what is testable, what is ... if I could refute unfalsifiable claims I'd be real famous. ... Given two well-supported premisses, that the weather is chaotic, ... But you can't refute the alleged indeterminism of weather, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... Well, weather is certainly complex. ... I have no real investment one way or another. ... that is the only real basis I have for objecting to your opinion. ... necessarily translates to indeterminism, but in any case he has ...
    (sci.logic)
Quantcast