ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:51 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: On Luck
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:19 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
I think it's interesting that so many people believe in "luck," in the sense of its existence. I think that it is a way of describing events based on prior observation and physical calculation, but luck is not an actual characteristic of anything. For instance, when a penny is flipped, various forces (e.g. gravity, friction, etc.) act upon it, and cause it to land in a certain way. Because both sides of a penny are roughly the same, and it is impossible for us to predict precisely how these forces will act upon it, we give it a 50% chance of landing on either side. But the penny does not know this when it is being flipped. I say this because I have heard people argue that, on the quantum level, randomness does exist (although it seems that this would just be another as-yet-unexplained phenomenon). Anyway, discuss.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Damn determinist/quantum thought.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
On the penny flipping: we also have no way of setting a precise amount of force into the flip.

I've heard that it is that an atom has a chance to be somewhere else at the same time. But I've also heard that it is simaltaneously there, and not there. Leading to a debate about another physicist's cat. Damn all these cats.

Before quantum theory, everything was deteriminist. Meaning, every action had only one logical reaction that could follow, if you knew everything involved. For instance, you let go of a ball. Assuming no outside forces were involved, it drops pretty much straight to the ground. But with quantum randomness, there is a very tiny chance that all it's atoms could appear somewhere else.

Argh, my physics knowledge is too small. Wandering Idiot, come here and tell us about particle theory and fluid theory, and all those fun things!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:42 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Yes, please help to, "stamp out ignorance," as my history teacher would put it.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
I know blindly guessing on four answer (a-d) questions without a "none" or "all" choice I get about 2/3 right.

You can call it luck, psychic ablility, subconscious knowledge, intuitive knowledge of test patterns (how many A's C's etc.), but it happens over and over.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I hate ignorance, especially when people claim it's truth...
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
There is a bunch of test strategies you could be using subconsciously.

In your case, you might be using the tried and true method of guessing which answers aren't right, using things like eliminating answers with extreme modifiers.

Stamp out ignorance! Kill it with a passion! Destroy it utterly! We hatesssess it.

Ignorance is probably my number one hate.

I admit, if it wasn't for quantum randomness, I'd have to logically believe in determinism. And that kind of creeps me out. Even as it is, it creeps us out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I hate ignorance, especially when people claim it's trut
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Abunai! wrote:

I admit, if it wasn't for quantum randomness, I'd have to logically believe in determinism. And that kind of creeps me out. Even as it is, it creeps us out.


I assume what creeps you out about determinism is the "no free will" thing. But Quantum Physics doesn't actually solve the problem of free will. I mean, a slot machine has no more free will than a clock. The output the brain produces is dependent on two things: a) the input, and b) random quantum chance. I don't see where free will enters into this.

The human brain operates by the same laws of physics as a rock. Sure, the brain is more "complex" (by our subjective standards), but it's still just a lump of organic matter in which a lot of electro-chemical reactions are taking place. Free will, to me, seems like way too metaphysical a concept to be included in any scientific discussion of the world. Of course, we still need to pretend free will exists. After all, our entire society is based on the idea of responsibility and blame, and without the idea of free will these concepts are empty.

I feel the same way about consciousness as I do about free will. As much as we can say to ourselves that we know we're "conscious", the concept itself just isn't scientific or proveable. I say human beings are animals that can pass the Turing test.

By the way, a good movie that addresses a lot of this stuff is "Waking Life".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
I don't think it's free will that bothers him, it's inevitablility. that history is written from beginning to end and we are just reading it, I think alot of people would rather believe that anything can happen.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 1:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
I think that "luck" is really just the term we give to people who have had multiple outcomes of a similar kind (beneficial or detrimental). I have good "luck", I usually roll a 5-6 on a D6. This, however, just means that out of a 1:6 chance of getting a number, I happen to get 5-6 more often- others get 3 more often, others get 1 more often, others get no specific number. I get the more extreme/unusual odds in the good side, so I have "good" luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:30 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
It's not really that we can't effect it through our actions, it's just that that effect can be predicted, just like everything else. Only, according to quantum physics, it can't.

It is interesting to think about the fact that, no matter what you believe about determinism and fate, our thought really is just a bunch of chemical reactions. It's not like a hormone stimulates the "happiness" part of the brain, which makes us happy. It's that we are happy.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I love rational debate.
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
IcyMonkey wrote:
I assume what creeps you out about determinism is the "no free will" thing. But Quantum Physics doesn't actually solve the problem of free will. I mean, a slot machine has no more free will than a clock. The output the brain produces is dependent on two things: a) the input, and b) random quantum chance. I don't see where free will enters into this.

The human brain operates by the same laws of physics as a rock. Sure, the brain is more "complex" (by our subjective standards), but it's still just a lump of organic matter in which a lot of electro-chemical reactions are taking place. Free will, to me, seems like way too metaphysical a concept to be included in any scientific discussion of the world. Of course, we still need to pretend free will exists. After all, our entire society is based on the idea of responsibility and blame, and without the idea of free will these concepts are empty.


You make a good assumption, but slightly off. What creeps me out is that if things happened again, there would be no change, nothing "unique" about what happened. It's just what would have happened given the circumstances. This is sort of like the "no free will" thing, but not quite.

I believe (sort of) that even if there was such a thing as "fate," you would still have free will. Whatever happens, you are making your choices, regardless of whether or not they would be the same in any other situation with similar circumstances. I guess I must have a different definition of free will than some.


IcyMonkey wrote:
I feel the same way about consciousness as I do about free will. As much as we can say to ourselves that we know we're "conscious", the concept itself just isn't scientific or proveable. I say human beings are animals that can pass the Turing test.


My education has been sadly lacking, it seems. What is the Turing test?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I love rational debate.
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:38 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Abunai! wrote:
You make a good assumption, but slightly off. What creeps me out is that if things happened again, there would be no change, nothing "unique" about what happened. It's just what would have happened given the circumstances. This is sort of like the "no free will" thing, but not quite.


You just described Nietzsche's concept of the eternal reccurence of the same almost perfectly. Have you read any Nietzsche?

Quote:
My education has been sadly lacking, it seems. What is the Turing test?


The Turing test, named after after computer scientist Alan Turing, is a test used to determine whether a particular AI can be considered conscious. Basically, a person communicates via computer to either a person in another room or another computer. If he can't tell whether he's communicating with a computer or a real human, then the AI can be considered conscious for all intents and purposes. The idea behind this is that we can't get inside an AI's mind so to speak, and thus can never truly determine whether it really is self-aware, conscious, or any of those other intangible things. The best we can do is judge it by its output.

I think that humans may very well be the same way. After all, consciousness can be no more proven by the person supposedly possessing the consciousness than it can by an outside observer. You just kind of know it, without needing outside proof. You can't describe consciousness, either. It seems to me as if consciousness is just another bullshit metaphysical concept like the soul that human beings haven't gotten around to abandoning. It's a meaningless, empty term used to explain actions that could just as easily (and more scientifically) be explained in terms of chemical processes.

I say we're basically machines, who receive input and produce output. Part of this output involves claiming that we have consciousness, and passionately defending this claim, and stating that our knowledge of our consciousness is innate and utterly obvious. Meanwhile, there is no awareness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Wow, I hope this makes sense. Probably not. But I can try.
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Quote:
You just described Nietzsche's concept of the eternal reccurence of the same almost perfectly. Have you read any Nietzsche?


Strangely enough, no. I've heard quotes and all, but never actually found any of his. Plus I am a bit busy right now reading Dumas's works.

Dang, I thought it was unique.

As for the human machine concept, I must disagree. Conscious thought, even if it can only be proven in the mind of the person proving it, exists. Perhaps not in any definable way, but there certainly is something there. Good old Descartes. If you think for a moment, you can realize that, yes, something does exist. If anything exists, then that means so do you. Think about it. Something is happening, even if only in the vaguest sense of the word. Right now, I'm typing on my keyboard. Regardless of whether or not any perceptions I have are illusions, something exists to experience. So "I" in some sense of the word, must exist. If I can realize this, then can't that be considered consciousness?

You can't describe consciousness, but you can't really describe the color blue, either?

I guess it boils down to a definition of the fuzzy term, "consciousness." It is a meaningless bullshit term, but that doesn't preclude something like it existing.

Edit: Fixed Socrates slip. Damn these philosophers and mathematicians with their easily confused Philosophies. Though I did think Socrates did have a similar theory.


Last edited by Abunai! on Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
As for the laws of probability, my lady, these cannot be broken, any more than any other mathematical principle. But laws of physics and mathematics are like a coordinate system that runs in only one dimension. Perhaps there is another dimension perpendicular to it, invisible to the laws of physics, describing the same things with different rules, and those rules are written in our hearts, in a deep place where we cannot go and read them except in our dreams.


-Neal Stephenson, <i>The Diamond Age</i>

As usual, the bastard says it better than I could possibly hope to. Damn it.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wow, I hope this makes sense. Probably not. But I can tr
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Abunai! wrote:
As for the human machine concept, I must disagree. Conscious thought, even if it can only be proven in the mind of the person proving it, exists. Perhaps not in any definable way, but there certainly is something there. Good old Socrates. If you think for a moment, you can realize that, yes, something does exist. If anything exists, then that means so do you. Think about it. Something is happening, even if only in the vaguest sense of the word. Right now, I'm typing on my keyboard. Regardless of whether or not any perceptions I have are illusions, something exists to experience. So "I" in some sense of the word, must exist. If I can realize this, then can't that be considered consciousness?


Okay, I assume you're referring to Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), not Socrates. Anyway, in my opinion (and in the opinion of most decent modern philosophers) Descartes was full of shit. He was a great mathematician, but his philosophy was basically created to defend Catholic dogma from the Empiricist philosophers such as Hume and Berkeley who were then becoming popular. The Empiricists basically claimed we get our ideas of the world from experience in the world itself, and that all knowledge has to come from experience. Descartes tried to disprove this through the "cogito ergo sum" thing, but I can't see any causal relation between the "cogito" and the "sum". Besides, Descartes can't prove that he thinks through pure reason. He could say, "From the way I act and from the things I say, I can conclude that I think". However, saying that he just inherently knows he can think, without proving it, is utterly illogical and unscientific.

Quote:
You can't describe consciousness, but you can't really describe the color blue, either?


[smartass] Yes, I can. Blue describes electromagnetic radiation that is between 450-500 nanometers long. [/smartass]

Quote:
I guess it boils down to a definition of the fuzzy term, "consciousness." It is a meaningless bullshit term, but that doesn't preclude something like it existing.


Well, anything could exist. There could be invisible pink unicorns dancing around my computer chair right now. That's why we need Occam's razor, which is usually paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one," but literally says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The fact is, consciousness is a useless, supernatural entity that is not necessary to explain how human beings work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Wow, I hope THIS makes sense.
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
IcyMonkey wrote:
Okay, I assume you're referring to Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), not Socrates. Anyway, in my opinion (and in the opinion of most decent modern philosophers) Descartes was full of shit. He was a great mathematician, but his philosophy was basically created to defend Catholic dogma from the Empiricist philosophers such as Hume and Berkeley who were then becoming popular. The Empiricists basically claimed we get our ideas of the world from experience in the world itself, and that all knowledge has to come from experience. Descartes tried to disprove this through the "cogito ergo sum" thing, but I can't see any causal relation between the "cogito" and the "sum". Besides, Descartes can't prove that he thinks through pure reason. He could say, "From the way I act and from the things I say, I can conclude that I think". However, saying that he just inherently knows he can think, without proving it, is utterly illogical and unscientific.


Damn. Fixed the slip. Anyways, I believe that Socrates did have a theory that something had to be pondering whether or not it existed. If I'm wrong, I believe the point still stands. I exist. Since there is input that results in output that turns into more input, a feedback loop, I'll consider that thinking. As for a causal relationship between thinking and existing, I can't think (yes, I realize how funny that sounds) of any situation of where one could think without existing. Hume and Berkeley weren't Empiricists by the way. I think they were Skeptics...
Arg. Must check source again....

Quote:
[smartass] Yes, I can. Blue describes electromagnetic radiation that is between 450-500 nanometers long. [/smartass]


Heh. Good one. But can you describe how it looks to you without circular reasoning? Is there any really blue about the range in the spectrum? Or is it something that is just arbitrary placed? I define blue as 462.5 and 487.5 nanometers in length, and would that really be wrong if not for the equally arbitrary definitions of someone else?

Quote:
Well, anything could exist. There could be invisible pink unicorns dancing around my computer chair right now. That's why we need Occam's razor, which is usually paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one," but literally says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The fact is, consciousness is a useless, supernatural entity that is not necessary to explain how human beings work.


This is why syllogisms have a rule called "existential import" which allows one to talk about definitions (whether unicorns or consciousness) in logical terms without assuming their existence. Assuming existence is a big leap, but would you argue, from your personal experience, that you don't have consciousness? How would you know, unless you had it?

You can have consciousness of consciousness, but you can also have consciousness of non-consciousness. Knowing that you don't know anything proves you know something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wow, I hope THIS makes sense.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 12:02 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Abunai! wrote:
Damn. Fixed the slip. Anyways, I believe that Socrates did have a theory that something had to be pondering whether or not it existed. If I'm wrong, I believe the point still stands. I exist. Since there is input that results in output that turns into more input, a feedback loop, I'll consider that thinking. As for a causal relationship between thinking and existing, I can't think (yes, I realize how funny that sounds) of any situation of where one could think without existing. Hume and Berkeley weren't Empiricists by the way. I think they were Skeptics...
Arg. Must check source again....


I'm not contesting that if one thinks, one must exist. I'm contesting that anyone can think in the first place, if we define thought as anything other than a series of electrochemical reactions in the brain that produce a specific output.

By the way, both terms (skeptic and empiricist) apply to Berkeley and Hume.

Quote:
Heh. Good one. But can you describe how it looks to you without circular reasoning? Is there any really blue about the range in the spectrum? Or is it something that is just arbitrary placed? I define blue as 462.5 and 487.5 nanometers in length, and would that really be wrong if not for the equally arbitrary definitions of someone else?


What blue "looks like" to me is not only irrelevant, but meaningless. I can say that I see blue, but all that means is that I have sensed a certain wavelength (the input) and have expressed that I think it is blue (the output). We can define blue however we want, it doesn't matter. The names we give colors, and indeed the ways we divide the color spectrum, are entirely arbitrary.

Quote:
This is why syllogisms have a rule called "existential import" which allows one to talk about definitions (whether unicorns or consciousness) in logical terms without assuming their existence. Assuming existence is a big leap, but would you argue, from your personal experience, that you don't have consciousness? How would you know, unless you had it?


Well, a computer can be programmed to argue that it doesn't have consciousness. I don't "know" that I don't have consciousness; I don't "know" anything, the way you're defining knowing. I'm just saying what I'm saying because certain neurological processes have caused my fingers to type these words on the keyboard. This would involve some fairly complex processses, like the neurons in my brain firing in such a way that they imitate a former brain state (i.e. memory), and that simulated past-brain-state interacting with my current state in such a way as to produce the typing that creates this text. Obviously the way I've just described it is probably not really accurate, but the point is that it can be explained. It can't all be explained by science right now, because it's too complex. However, that doesn't mean we should be pulling out stupid supernatural concepts like consciousness simply because "we know we have it" and "it's common sense".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 6:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
IcyMonkey wrote:
I'm not contesting that if one thinks, one must exist. I'm contesting that anyone can think in the first place, if we define thought as anything other than a series of electrochemical reactions in the brain that produce a specific output.


"I can't see any causal relation between the "cogito" and the "sum"."

That line confused me, then.

Why define thought as anything else? I for one cannot see how thought being defined as such would preclude the existence of consciousness.

Quote:
What blue "looks like" to me is not only irrelevant, but meaningless. I can say that I see blue, but all that means is that I have sensed a certain wavelength (the input) and have expressed that I think it is blue (the output). We can define blue however we want, it doesn't matter. The names we give colors, and indeed the ways we divide the color spectrum, are entirely arbitrary.


Saying that something is blue is as meaningless as saying one has consciousness; they are both arbitrary and empty terms. But something being arbitrary doesn't prevent it from existing. Electromagnetic radiation in that range does exist, for instance.

Quote:
Well, a computer can be programmed to argue that it doesn't have consciousness. I don't "know" that I don't have consciousness; I don't "know" anything, the way you're defining knowing. I'm just saying what I'm saying because certain neurological processes have caused my fingers to type these words on the keyboard. This would involve some fairly complex processses, like the neurons in my brain firing in such a way that they imitate a former brain state (i.e. memory), and that simulated past-brain-state interacting with my current state in such a way as to produce the typing that creates this text. Obviously the way I've just described it is probably not really accurate, but the point is that it can be explained. It can't all be explained by science right now, because it's too complex. However, that doesn't mean we should be pulling out stupid supernatural concepts like consciousness simply because "we know we have it" and "it's common sense".


Like Euclid's geometric axioms?

This isn't a valid comparison, because you CAN look inside yourself. You can "know" that you know. This why Descartes (despite his faulty assumptions afterwards) chose himself in the "I think, therefore I am." You can't "know" anything about any other person, but you can "know" yourself in some sense of the word. How could you delude yourself about your own consciousness without being conscious of yourself in some sense?

Now, science. It is based on generalizations and definitions. Just because you have dropped a ball ten times and it has landed on the ground is no indication of what will happen in the future. Science makes lots of assumptions. So does any other almost any other branch of thought. Your making assumptions that the input you get is correct, and that the brain functions as it is explained by science to do, for instance.

Okay, I'm too tired to make any better of this, so I'll go to sleep now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Descartes cogitavit 'cogito' sed non erat.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:19 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Damn. Posted before, but my cpu crashed. Oh, well.

Basically, the age-old question is, "If the brain is simply an organ which delivers sensory information to 'me', then where am 'I'?"

Also, I must agree that it doesn't matter whether free will exists, because our actions would still have an effect on our happiness. Unless you're so convinced of non-existence that you don't care about pain or sadness, because nothing is feeling it. I can't quite point my finger at why that would be bad, except that the assumed basis of morality is that suffering and death are bad.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: This is actually a *discussion*, not a debate, right?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
Well, golly gee! Other forums on this board *do* exist! (And I realize this thread's a few days old, but I was Summoned, and I find the subject interesting, so anyone who's done with it don't mind me...)

[disclaimer] IANAQP [/disclaimer]

Abunai! wrote:
I've heard that it is that an atom has a chance to be somewhere else at the same time. But I've also heard that it is simaltaneously there, and not there. Leading to a debate about another physicist's cat. Damn all these cats.

Heh. I wouldn't take Schroedinger's cat analogy too seriously. I don't know of any physicists who do. Besides, the cat is observing itself anyway :)

Basically, in quantum physics you can determine the *probability* of certain things happening (to a high degree of certainty, in fact) but never know for sure ahead of time which possibility will come true (I'm simplifying, I know, but this gives the general gist). So if I have a photon cannon that shoots out a single photon, it will most likely continue in a straight line until it hits the wall. There is also a small possibility that it will fly off in an unlikely direction, go back in time, or do loop-the-loops. The probability of that is miniscule enough that you can be pretty sure your flashlight beam is never going to do a U-turn and shine back in your face.

To my knowledge, there are two main (competing) interpretations of quantum uncertainty. The usual one, known as the Copenhagen interpretation, basically says that that state of a system is indeterminate until observed, at which point the wave function collapses and one of the possible states of the system becomes manifest (with the probability of which state it will be well understood ahead of time). This version may make the math come out right, but I've always found it annoyingly solipsistic in nature. The interpretation I prefer myself is the so-called "many-worlds" version, in which *every* possibility becomes manifest, just in a different quantum universe. (Good FAQ on it here). In most cases, the various interpretations come out to looking the same from our point of view, but there are some subtle differences that may lead the way to determining which is the "correct" one.

Abunai! wrote:
Before quantum theory, everything was deteriminist. Meaning, every action had only one logical reaction that could follow, if you knew everything involved. For instance, you let go of a ball. Assuming no outside forces were involved, it drops pretty much straight to the ground. But with quantum randomness, there is a very tiny chance that all it's atoms could appear somewhere else.

While it's true that there's a slim chance that some of its individual atoms could take a less-likely path and end up somewhere else, the chance of *all* of the ball's atoms doing so at once are so miniscule that I'm pretty sure such an event would be unprecedented in the history of the universe. In other words, if you throw a ball to someone and it goes wide, it's your own damn fault :)

While we're on the subject, I'd like to note, for Pratchett fans, that his books are full of references to quantum mechanics, particularly where the high-energy magic department of the Unseen University is involved. I remember seeing a direct reference to the many-worlds theorem in the one where Granny Weatherwax is talking to the Dean. Hell, my current sig is a reference to quantum uncertainty (I'm curious- how many of you got that? I'm thinking about changing it...)

Abunai! wrote:
Argh, my physics knowledge is too small. Wandering Idiot, come here and tell us about particle theory and fluid theory, and all those fun things!

I know nothing about fluid theory except that the math is nasty, so it's best left to computers to figure out. And that you can use simplified versions of the equations to make cool Winamp visualizations.

IcyMonkey wrote:
I assume what creeps you out about determinism is the "no free will" thing. But Quantum Physics doesn't actually solve the problem of free will. I mean, a slot machine has no more free will than a clock. The output the brain produces is dependent on two things: a) the input, and b) random quantum chance. I don't see where free will enters into this.
[snip]
Free will, to me, seems like way too metaphysical a concept to be included in any scientific discussion of the world. Of course, we still need to pretend free will exists. After all, our entire society is based on the idea of responsibility and blame, and without the idea of free will these concepts are empty.

Heck, If you want to be *really* pedantic about it, the input, i.e. the outside world, is also determined by random chance, so there's really only one value to worry about (although one could argue about interference from "outside the system" like god(s), advanced aliens entities from other universes, etc.) Of course, this gets into cosmology, which is a decidedly speculative field.

The way I've always liked to think about it is, even in a deterministic universe, the future may be set, but it's our actions which choose what that future is. Semantics, sure, but arguably, I had no choice but to type that just now :P

Abunai! wrote:
I guess it boils down to a definition of the fuzzy term, "consciousness." It is a meaningless bullshit term, but that doesn't preclude something like it existing.

It's not a meaningless term, but it is a bit fuzzy. Consciousness is an emergent property of certain very complex systems (i.e., the brain, or a very advanced hypothetical computer program). Now, if you understood a complete working model of a human brain and nervous system, down to the neuron level, there would be no need for a high-level term like "consciousness". You would understand all the workings of the brain, and the various neurological feedback loops that underlie what we call "consciousness" at the base level. The problem is that such a model is simply impossible for a human mind to comprehend fully, by definition. You can't fully understand a fine-grained model of your own brain, because that gets you into a nasty Godelian loop where your brain has to be bigger than itself. So we come up with a term like "conscious" to describe a certain class of phenomena, which gains in practicality what it loses in exactness. I imagine a superintelligence (alien, future computer, god, take your pick) would be able to comprehend fine-grained models of human brains just fine, and would thus have a far better idea of the actual neurological processes involved. Note that this means that humans are not fully conscious, since we can't understand the working of our own minds (In fact, I don't see how *any* intelligence, no matter how advanced, could be, since a more complex intelligence would still be susceptible to the same Godelian loop). As a final note, I regard it as a mistake to classify entities simply as "conscious" or not- there are varying levels of consciousness. Think of it in terms of a linear progression. At one end are rocks, gases, etc. Further along are things which react to the world via simple feedback mechanisms, like plants which bend towards the light. Then the lower animals, like tapeworms, continuing up through the higher vertebrates, with humans at the farthest end, and any hypothetical super-conscious superintelligences beyond them. I regard this more/less consciousness continuum, as I like to call it, as a useful tool for ethical analysis, since we'll probably be dealing with sentient AI's and such before too long.

The best book I've ever read on the subject of "what is consciousness?" is Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach. You are all hereby ordered to read it (and nevermind the somewhat dull bit of typographical manipulation in the first chapter, which Amazon inexplicably chose for their sample pages).


To make a comment on the *original* topic (poor Unum, thread hijacked at the second post...) I believe people believe in luck for the same reason people believe in a lot of things- they're trying to make sense of the world. Pattern-finding and grouping are some of the deepest and most-used capabilities of our brains, and are vastly important, but using them has its drawbacks. Just as we use the term "consciousness" to denote a phenomenon that is too complex to really understand, so some people use the term "luck" to talk about sets of statistically unlikely occurrences. The problem comes when you "confuse the map and the territory", so to speak, and think of the shorthand concept as being divorced from its more complex true nature. When I use the term "consciousness", I do so with the awareness that it's merely a handy identifier for a complex system based on the interaction of billions of neurons. Some people, however, view it as its own thing, something which can thus be divorced from the underlying physical system, i.e. a "soul". (Now certainly, it should be possible to transfer consciousness from one physical substrate to another, but that's not what I'm talking about.) Similarly, some people view "luck" as a supernatural phenomenon, divorced from the more complex total statistical situation. To see why this is, consider this:

When you flip a penny, the chances (we'll pretend it's a perfectly uniform penny, with a randomized flip-force) of it landing on either side are 50%. If you flip it 100 times, chances are the number of times it lands on heads will be about equal to the number of times it comes up tails. However, if you do 1000 sets of 100 flips each, the chances are very good that one of those sets will be all heads, or very close to it. You have to keep in mind that just because something's improbable, in the statistical sense, doesn't mean it'll never happen- in fact, it's highly statistically *likely* that the improbable will happen at least some of the time. A person watching during this particular set might make the claim, halfway through, that the coin flipping mechanism was on a "hot streak", or "lucky", and seem to be proven right when the rest or most of the rest come up heads. Never mind the couple hundred sets before that where the sides came out about even. Because statistically unlikely events are generally more interesting than the likely ones (due to rarity), they tend to gain more attention, and stick in people's minds more. "Local man doesn't win lottery", is not a news story. "Local man buys lottery ticket, wins $23,000,000", is.


When someone mentions Schroedinger's cat, I reach for my gun. -Stephen Hawking

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Last edited by Wandering Idiot on Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:58 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Well, actually, my point was to lead to a discussion on this, but I'm too stoopid when it comes to quantum physics (or at least as yet ignorant) to adequately debate about it. And that's really all I have to say, as everything else seems to be in agreement with what I would say.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group