oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (09/09/85)
>> o Misconceptions: You have some exclusive access >> to the *true* nature of the universe, thus, all those >> opposing to what *you* *know* are "wishful thinkers" and >> in this case, "free-will-junkies". (Your words.) [OZ] +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming that | |what I am talking about is just one person's opinion and not the result | |of years of scientific inquiry, when you claim I am talking about things | |"opposing to what *I* *know*". Let us be clear that those who seek to | |simply wash away the body of knowledge and ipso facto replace it with | |models of the universe that simply match what they LIKE (not that which | |has been examined and analyzed in the past) really are engaging in nothing | |but wishful thinking. [ROSEN] | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] I presume these results based on years of inquiry are very conclusive, although We, along with Dennett, Hofstadter, and many others too numerous to list here, seem to have missed them. This *body of knowledge* you are speaking of: Would you give us few pointers, so that we can get at it too ?? Just to check whether or not it is the same *body of knowledge* that Dennett is running circles around. Could you please summarize this stuff ?? (I *mean* summarize. pointing at 10,000 articles you have posted is not good enough. It would take a year to go through all the little tidbits of statements and distill it to something that is comprehensible. By your own admission, you type fast, so it should not be much of a problem). In other words, put your keyboard where your mouth is. (no cheap pun intended) Of course, once you summarize all that, I will tell you about how modern physics has done away with classical determinism. I could even recommend few more books from likes of David Bohm and Max Jammer, for you to dismiss without even reading. >> o Ignorance: Judge a book (literally) by its cover, >> and dismiss/ridicule without even as much as skimming >> through it, irrespective of the fact that it is written >> by a well-known philosopher who has given us (thnx) >> BRAINSTORMS. > >Ah, the "credentials" argument. This book was written by a "well-known" >philosopher, thus it must have merit. > No, it may or may not have merit. But given the track record, it does not deserve the kind of dismissal and ridicule you have presented. Besides, you seem to agree with me that he is at least worthy of a skim (although you seem to have failed to do so..): ----------------------------------------------------------- [FROM A PREVIOUS ROSEN POSTING] ... None of this means I don't admire the man (I've found what you say about him is true [good thinker, writer. ed.]) as a writer and thinker, nor that I don't intend (one of these days) to read both Brainstorms and Elbow Room ... ----------------------------------------------------------- > >Tell me, have you read "The Dawn >at Midnight" by Sidney Robbins? No? Why not? It's been on the housewives' >best seller list for months! Are you dismissing it out of hand, by not >even seeing fit to skim it? Oh, I see, perhaps you're waiting for some >form of recommendation of the book ... > I do not know the author, nor the book, but perhaps that is because I am not a housewife :-). But under no conditions will you find me ridiculing/dismissing it without at least skimming it. It would be ignorant of me to do otherwise, wouldn't you say? >> Your unsolicited, and quite >> abnoxious attack on a book you have not even read is enough to stop >> me from discussing even its table of contents. (You see, I really >> do not want to tempt you to post the table of contents of your >> Unicorns book..) I really do not care whether you read it or not. >> It was a recommendation for those who are interested in reading >> about ideas supporting and/or opposing to their own. Take it or >> leave it. > >"Unsolicited"? Am I only allowed to speak on a topic once you have given >me permission? Oh, you we *speaking* on a topic when you were ridiculing/dismissing the book were you ?? My perception of your *speaking* was much like an unnecessary slap on the face. That was *never* solicited. >..... >Given that I already have an occupation, I'll stick to "enlightening" the >net alone, since this is an avocational discussion forum which is all I >would care for. If you think my ideas are that good, feel free to publish >them. [ROSEN] I did not say they were *good*. Besides, how come they are *ideas* all of a sudden ?? I thought you were speaking of *scientifically* established *truth* about the nature of the universe. > >If you were being sarcastic, what is it you don't like about my >ideas that prompts you to treat them with such contempt? > I have no problem with your ideas. What I do not like is your condescending tone, your passing *your* *ideas* as well established *knowns*, and your infuriating remarks. (free-will- junkies ??? Wishful thinkers ??? Is this name calling or what?) Oz -- Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti] You see things; and you say "WHY?" But I dream things that never were; and say "WHY NOT?" G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/18/85)
>>> o Misconceptions: You have some exclusive access >>> to the *true* nature of the universe, thus, all those >>> opposing to what *you* *know* are "wishful thinkers" and >>> in this case, "free-will-junkies". (Your words.) [OZ] >>You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming that | >>what I am talking about is just one person's opinion and not the result | >>of years of scientific inquiry, when you claim I am talking about things | >>"opposing to what *I* *know*". Let us be clear that those who seek to >>simply wash away the body of knowledge and ipso facto replace it with | >>models of the universe that simply match what they LIKE (not that which | >>has been examined and analyzed in the past) really are engaging in nothing | >>but wishful thinking. [ROSEN] | > You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming > that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific thought and knowledge? Me? Or you? Where does the burden of proof lie? > [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] You betchum, red rider. > I presume these results based on years of inquiry are very conclusive, > although We, along with Dennett, Hofstadter, and many > others too numerous to list here, seem to have missed them. If you had read Hofstadter (and even Dennett), you would have gleaned some of that yourself. Mind you, Hofstadter is not at all in agreement with Dennett (and found "Elbow Room" a bit contortive, though he liked the writing within it), so I am not at all sure you have your facts straight here. > This *body of knowledge* you are speaking of: Would you give us > few pointers, so that we can get at it too ?? Just to check whether > or not it is the same *body of knowledge* that Dennett is running > circles around. Could you please summarize this stuff ?? Running circles around? Is that another way of saying "being circular about" or "circumventing"? Sounds an awful lot to me like you're presuming your own conclusion, which is the hallmark of the "anti-scientist" (you know, the one whose file modes are all 666 :-). If you'd be willing to delineate what you are referring to, where your body of knowledge disagrees with mine. > (I *mean* summarize. pointing at 10,000 articles you have posted > is not good enough. It would take a year to go through all the > little tidbits of statements and distill it to something that > is comprehensible. By your own admission, you type fast, so it > should not be much of a problem). In other words, put your > keyboard where your mouth is. (no cheap pun intended) In other words, you weren't willing to read what I wrote the first time, so now I'm obliged to summarize it ALL because you say so! No thank you, my friend. Ask some specific questions, get some specific answers, but don't play these broad sweeping games with me. > Of course, once you summarize all that, I will tell you > about how modern physics has done away with classical > determinism. I could even recommend few more books from > likes of David Bohm and Max Jammer, for you to dismiss without > even reading. I'll summarize this: it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim "science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point for me, so I'll believe THAT one". Funny, isn't that a perfect example of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you accuse me of: "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!! YAY!!!!!" >>> o Ignorance: Judge a book (literally) by its cover, >>> and dismiss/ridicule without even as much as skimming >>> through it, irrespective of the fact that it is written >>> by a well-known philosopher who has given us (thnx) >>> BRAINSTORMS. >>Ah, the "credentials" argument. This book was written by a "well-known" >>philosopher, thus it must have merit. > No, it may or may not have merit. But given the track record, > it does not deserve the kind of dismissal and ridicule you > have presented. Besides, you seem to agree with me that he is > at least worthy of a skim (although you seem to have failed to > do so..): I guess by the same token we should listen to Shockley's views about race and intelligence. After all, he's a genius, he invented the transistor! Track record? I believe Dennett is worthy of more than a skim. But I have seen no knowledge gleaned by any reader of that book in question that he/she has been able to summarize. You know, the way you demanded *I* summarize everything I've ever written. I think summarizing a book you read and expounding on what you learned from it is far more reasonable. Yet we haven't seen it. >> ... None of this means I don't admire the >> man (I've found what you say about him is true [good thinker, >> writer. ed.]) as a writer >> and thinker, nor that I don't intend (one of these days) to >> read both Brainstorms and Elbow Room ... >> >>Tell me, have you read "The Dawn >>at Midnight" by Sidney Robbins? No? Why not? It's been on the housewives' >>best seller list for months! Are you dismissing it out of hand, by not >>even seeing fit to skim it? Oh, I see, perhaps you're waiting for some >>form of recommendation of the book ... > I do not know the author, nor the book, but perhaps that is > because I am not a housewife :-). But under no conditions will you > find me ridiculing/dismissing it without at least skimming it. > It would be ignorant of me to do otherwise, wouldn't you say? No. It would not. If no one gave any substantive recommendation for it, or no information about it was forthcoming, I would have no pressing reason to read it. Likewise, if the information I got about it was that it was uninteresting (or, for a non-fiction book, counterfactual), I would see even less than no reason to read it. >>> Your unsolicited, and quite >>> abnoxious attack on a book you have not even read is enough to stop >>> me from discussing even its table of contents. (You see, I really >>> do not want to tempt you to post the table of contents of your >>> Unicorns book..) I really do not care whether you read it or not. >>> It was a recommendation for those who are interested in reading >>> about ideas supporting and/or opposing to their own. Take it or >>> leave it. >>"Unsolicited"? Am I only allowed to speak on a topic once you have given >>me permission? > Oh, you we *speaking* on a topic when you were ridiculing/dismissing > the book were you ?? My perception of your *speaking* was much like > an unnecessary slap on the face. That was *never* solicited. The topic was the whole extended discussion about free will, and a related topic that I was speaking of was the way people seem to read books (and quote them) and recommend them as good without actually having learned anything from them, e.g., liking the conclusion and saying "Hey, this author is OK, I don't need to have read or understood the rest!" Whose face was slapped? Again, am I only allowed to speak on a topic once YOU have given permission? Your contortive remark that I wasn't speaking on a topic at all isn't justification for the real "abnoxious attack", which seems to have come from you. >>Given that I already have an occupation, I'll stick to "enlightening" the >>net alone, since this is an avocational discussion forum which is all I >>would care for. If you think my ideas are that good, feel free to publish >>them. [ROSEN] > I did not say they were *good*. I noticed. > Besides, how come they are *ideas* all of a sudden ?? I thought you were > speaking of *scientifically* established *truth* about the nature of the > universe. And ideas about models for that truth. What exactly are you trying to hit with your wild swinging punches? >>If you were being sarcastic, what is it you don't like about my >>ideas that prompts you to treat them with such contempt? > I have no problem with your ideas. What I do not like is > your condescending tone, your passing *your* *ideas* as well > established *knowns*, and your infuriating remarks. (free-will- > junkies ??? Wishful thinkers ??? Is this name calling or what?) If I am wrong about what I am saying being "well established knowns", why don't YOU summarize where I go "wrong"? If my tone seems condescending, it seems that the only reason for such a perception is that what I say runs counter to your personal beliefs, and that is taken as some sort of personal attack. Wishful thinkers is an accurate label applied to anyone who works backwards from a conclusion they want, to build distorted axioms about the world and then say "See? There is this thing I said I believed in!" And free will junkies seems quite appropriate when referring to people who want free will at any price: distorting the English language, contorting science to their own ends. If that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't know what is. I guess it's wrong for me to use such names, but OK for you... (Says something...) -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (09/20/85)
>> You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming >> that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. > >Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific >thought and knowledge? Me? Or you? Where does the burden of proof lie? > I do not remember claiming anything anti-scientific !! What is this all about ??? >> [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] > >You betchum, red rider. > No. Just blue rider. Are you trying to say that if I am sceptical about the claim that the universe is absolutely deterministic, than I am un-scientific ??? > >I'll summarize this: it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for >believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim >"science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point >for me, so I'll believe THAT one". Funny, isn't that a perfect example >of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you >accuse me of: "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a >determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!! >YAY!!!!!" > YAY!! indeed !! Obviously, you did not get the point. *You* are just as much a "wishful thinker" as anyone else you accused of being a wishful thinker. You see, *you* believe in absolute determinism, and *wish* that was really the case. On the other hand, the same science that came up with that model of the universe, is now has a new model, which happens to be more probabilistic then deterministic. But, *hold on* !! We *know* that the universe is deterministic !!! Science said so !!! [why don't you train your sceptical eye on yourself for a change ??] The point is, red ryder, you choose to be sceptical about everything else except your own *knowledge*. Your attachment to classic determinism is no different than someone's attachment to the concept of "soul", or christian beliefs, or astrology. The only difference is that you hide behind "years of scientific inquiry", which, appearently, does not hold up very well anymore. [just a claim you say ??? Perhaps I know something *you* don't.] Oz -- Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti] You see things; and you say "WHY?" But I dream things that never were; and say "WHY NOT?" G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/24/85)
[Not food] In article <1727@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >I'll summarize this: it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for >believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim >"science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point >for me, so I'll believe THAT one". Funny, isn't that a perfect example >of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you >accuse me of: "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a >determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!! >YAY!!!!!" Your are revealing your ignorance of physics here. The evidence for quantum uncertainty is stronger than just "we can determine no cause". This is not the place and I don't have the time to go into it (there was a Scientific American article dealing with some of the issues a couple of years back). But if you really believe in determinism, you are being every bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly accepted by those in the field. I don't accept the argument that quantum uncertainty is real, but not reflected in macro structures, such as the brain. The brain is exactly the kind of macro structure in which small random events can have an effect. Specifically, it has a very large number of threshhold events -- the firing or non-firing of a neuron is a relatively large event, which happens or does not happen based on differences which are often quite small. Such events turn micro effects into macro effects. And there are a tremendous number of neuron firings in the human brain -- enough, I believe, to make up for the tremendously small size of the primitive random events. >No. It would not. If no one gave any substantive recommendation for it, >or no information about it was forthcoming, I would have no pressing >reason to read it. Likewise, if the information I got about it was that it >was >uninteresting (or, for a non-fiction book, counterfactual), I would see even >less than no reason to read it. There is a difference between rejecting a book and not reading it. Your original comment suggested that you rejected the book (decided that it was wrong, for a non-fiction book) based on the cover. Maybe you didn't, but that was the impression you gave. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/24/85)
>> You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming >> that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. > >Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific >thought and knowledge? Me? Or you? Where does the burden of proof lie? > >> [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] > >You betchum, red rider. Rich, thanks for giving us once again a brilliant illustration of your power of argument. Many of your demonstrations of the correctness of your positions are about as strong as "you betchum, red rider". I am not saying that your positions are wrong; but I am saying that you refuse to support them scientifically and objectively. Rather, when pressed hard you often resort to insults and declamations. As for "who is making the claim ... completely contrary ...?" I don't think anyone is, except for your claims *about people*, and there the burden of proof is on you. As for the burden of proof for philosophical arguments, it is on everyone who engages in them, even you, *no matter how obvious you think your statements are*; if they are challenged, they are not obvious. If the scientific method is challenged, the burden is on anyone who chooses to defend it. Philosophy of science is really damn tricky business, and dismissing questions about it by calling the questioners names is not *philosophically* defensible. Try explaining just what the scientific method is, when, where and why it applies, why we trust induction given Hume's powerful arguments, how to use Occam's Razor and why. What is proof? What is sufficient evidence? Why do we accept Modus Ponens? How do we deal with someone who rejects it? Why not share your deep thoughts on these subjects? *Philosophize* a bit. >> This *body of knowledge* you are speaking of: Would you give us >> few pointers, so that we can get at it too ?? Just to check whether >> or not it is the same *body of knowledge* that Dennett is running >> circles around. Could you please summarize this stuff ?? >> (I *mean* summarize. pointing at 10,000 articles you have posted >> is not good enough. It would take a year to go through all the >> little tidbits of statements and distill it to something that >> is comprehensible. By your own admission, you type fast, so it >> should not be much of a problem). In other words, put your >> keyboard where your mouth is. (no cheap pun intended) > >In other words, you weren't willing to read what I wrote the first time, so >now I'm obliged to summarize it ALL because you say so! No thank you, my >friend. Ask some specific questions, get some specific answers, but don't >play these broad sweeping games with me. Clearly you were being asked to summarize the body of knowledge you had referred to, *rather than* repeat your own postings, which can hardly be considered a body of knowledge. But since you can't do so, you used a a typically dishonest method of avoidance, redirection, and attack. >> Of course, once you summarize all that, I will tell you >> about how modern physics has done away with classical >> determinism. I could even recommend few more books from >> likes of David Bohm and Max Jammer, for you to dismiss without >> even reading. > >I'll summarize this: it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for >believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim >"science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point >for me, so I'll believe THAT one". Funny, isn't that a perfect example >of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you >accuse me of: "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a >determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!! >YAY!!!!!" Rich, while some may think you wrong for believing in the work of science, I don't think the person you responded to has indicated that. Rather, it is *your claim* that what you say is based on science, that is questioned. The only thing I have seen you offer is a single quotation from a single dictionary of only one of the contained definitions of free will, coupled with a blatantly obvious (to me) misinterpretation of that definition. One of the basic requirements of the scientific method is that a scientist's work, to be considered valid, must use acceptable methods and be based on accepted and validated logic. Your methods, at least as illustrated in this forum, are not scientific, scientifically presented, or accepted by the community. No scientist can stand alone and say "I used proper methods and logic and therefore what I say must be true even if few agree with me" because this does not allow for the *possibility that that scientist is wrong*. The scientist *may* be correct, but the power of the scientific method lies in *verification*; dropping that requirement leads to a proliferation of Von Danikens and Rich Rosens, all claiming access to a truth that the "authorities" deny. Now I do believe that Rich Rosen is more rational than Von Daniken, but I would be hard pressed to demonstrate it to someone else, given the similarity of arrogant tone and approach. As is typical of your style, in your paragraph above you use mockery and condescending judgement. But one who *consistently* applies scientific method, who isn't just trying to "score points", should attempt to understand what the modern "body of scientific knowledge" has to say. You *assume* that the only way in which classical determinism can be rejected is by asserting acausality. But *science* seems to indicates that, in our universe, a past leads to equally likely futures, only one of which is our present. Thus, our current situation was *caused*, but not *determined*. The smooth 4-dimensional space-time continuum simply isn't any longer a sufficient model, any more than Newton's Absolute Space was a sufficient model after the findings of the 19th century. It is only your clinging to a classical notion, maintaining a model that fits the universe, not as you would LIKE it to be, but as it seems it must be given your current knowledge and imagery, that leads you make the statements you do. Of course, you are in good company: Einstein clung to that world view harder than anyone; "Der Herrgott wurfelt nicht" is a pretty strong bit of "wishful thinking". However, by employing a multiple worlds theory, one can still avoid that uncomfortable randomness without contradicting the nearly overwhelming evidence of non-determinism in the classical sense, embracing a wider notion of completeness that probably would have satisfied Einstein. Note that the multiple worlds view cannot be demonstrated to be true or false, but it is a preferable model to one involving randomness. Einstein's rejection was not *simply* wishful thinking; there are very powerful reasons to reject randomness in scientific models, just as there are very powerful reasons to reject action at a distance no matter how strong the evidence (at times it has seemed quite strong), as there are strong reasons for maintaining a mechanical view of the world and to assume the validity of induction. These reasons have to do with completeness and efficiency of descriptive ability; Occam's Razor honed to a very fine edge. There may be disagreements as to how the world works in these areas, but the bases of the disagreements run quite deep. I haven't seen any evidence that *you* have great insight or knowledge here; your reaction should be to seek such knowledge and insight, not to call people names, mock them, or reject their statements out of hand. >> I have no problem with your ideas. What I do not like is >> your condescending tone, your passing *your* *ideas* as well >> established *knowns*, and your infuriating remarks. (free-will- >> junkies ??? Wishful thinkers ??? Is this name calling or what?) > >If I am wrong about what I am saying being "well established knowns", why >don't YOU summarize where I go "wrong"? If my tone seems condescending, >it seems that the only reason for such a perception is that what I say runs >counter to your personal beliefs, and that is taken as some sort of personal >attack. Why does it seem "that the only reason ..."? You mean seems to you? Do you really feel that if many people find you condescending, the only possible reason is a weakness in each of them? Can you not conceive of a weakness in your own personality? I admit to a fair amount of arrogance; I find many who interact here to be foolish, naive, "inferior". But I also find many to be quite clever, well-educated, thought-provoking, open-minded. When a large number of people with minds I respect criticize me in a similar way, I will react defensively at first, but my objectivity and scientific orientation leads to me consider it to be significant evidence, and I start to reexamine my own behavior. I suggest that you, Rich, have been very unobjective and unscientific toward your own behavior and attitude. I may be wrong; but if you do not carefully and objectively consider the possibility that I am not, then you have rejected science where it touches you most. >Wishful thinkers is an accurate label applied to anyone who works >backwards from a conclusion they want, to build distorted axioms about >the world and then say "See? There is this thing I said I believed in!" You constantly assume and claim *motive* about others; that is ad hominem. You speak about the thinker rather than the thought. That is where the objection lies. You may respond that I am being ad hominem in this article; but it is my intent to speak about *you*, *your attitudes*, *your effect* on the tone of conversation in this forum, but not about the validity of your ideas. I will only talk about accuracy of your ideas in their own terms. But if you claim validity of your ideas in terms other than logical, then I will respond in kind. If you speak with the language of Principia Mathematica, *then* you will earn response in kind. >And free will junkies seems quite appropriate when referring to people who >want free will at any price: distorting the English language, contorting >science to their own ends. If that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't >know what is. Rich, you want to justify your claim that someone is analogous to a junkie, so you describe junkie-like behavior, and say "if that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't know what is". Somehow your construction of a tautology is supposed to strengthen your argument. But the argument is not whether junkies are junkies, but whether *the people you are talking about* are junkies. You think they want free will at any price because of the way they distort the language. But it doesn't follow; they may merely have misunderstood the language or its implications; "wanting free will at any price" is a very unscientific, condescending judgement. You argue that they distort the language, by quoting one dictionary definition and interpreting it in a certain way, and frequently repeating it as "*the* definition". But your interpretation is controversial, your definition only one of many, your dictionary arguably an inferior source for a philosophical argument, your definition quite arguably not *the* definition held by the masses or used historically. You may disagree; but that is what it is, a *disagreement*. Calling it "distorting the language" is unscientific, arrogant, contentious, egotistical, and generally being a jerk. Such language would never be accepted in any respectable *scientific* forum. >I guess it's wrong for me to use such names, but OK for you... >(Says something...) You seem to be implying that it wasn't ok for him, but then you should conclude that it wasn't ok for you, and act accordingly. However, in addition, the situation is not symmetric; rather, it runs something like I believe A about B because of C. [A philosophical statement] You say that because you are a junkie and a distorter and a contorter. [An ad hominem statement, since it does not speak strictly in the philosophical language of the first statement, but rather talks about the thinker] Everything I say is obvious or is based on a well-established body of knowledge. [arrogant and unsupported] You are being an arrogant and contentious ass. [A somewhat appropriate response to the above statement, the content of which was name calling, not discussion of A, B, and C] Now, frankly, Rich, I don't expect this to have much affect upon you. I expect you to continue to be a disruptive, misdirecting influence in a forum which could be very deep and interesting. And I realize that this note is mostly an expression of my anger and frustration, and may have no positive effect at all. But perhaps it will cause you to reevaluate a little. Also, I would like to encourage others to *not reply* to contentious notes, even if they contain good or thought provoking ideas (and I certainly think Rich does often express such ideas). This of course applies to my notes too; I certainly want my irrationality and contentiousness to be discouraged and much as anyone's; there is no scientific demonstration of a favored ego. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/26/85)
> ... The evidence for > quantum uncertainty is stronger than just "we can determine no cause". > This is not the place and I don't have the time to go into it (there was > a Scientific American article dealing with some of the issues a couple of > years back). But if you really believe in determinism, you are being every > bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly > accepted by those in the field. Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. Padraig Houlahan.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/01/85)
> .. if you really believe in determinism, you are being every >> bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly >> accepted by those in the field. >Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, >i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. >This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that >we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The >system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. - Padraig There are many interpretations of just what QM represents. However, if QM is philosophically unsatisfactory if it describes what we will see when we look, rather than "what is there when we don't", is it not a virtue that sentences expressing unobservable states are incapable of formulation? Must science be bothered with the potential metaphysical truth of questions like "Did George Washington sneeze on August 13, 1773?". Would not Occam have approved of a theory that insists that "States which are not accessible do not exist"? Secondly, the so-called "Quantum theory of Measurement" does not imply that all indeterminacy is caused merely by inaccuracy in measurement techniques. Given the bizarre multiplicity of interpretations, I believe the reason for this appellation was its stunning success at prediction of empirical results regardless of the scientific community's inability to agree on the reality (if any) beyond those measurements -- the Copenhagen dogma arguably carries as little metaphysical baggage as possible. Note too, that quantum indeterminacy explains why atoms do not collapse, or why vacuums always contain random electromagnetic energy, even when we are not performing micro-level experiments. Until QM, such phenomena were most paradoxical. As to disproof of classical determinism, I refer you to any discussion of Bell's interconnectedness principle, which has recently been verified across macroscopic distances. You may not believe my past articles (which no doubt reflect my biased ignorance), but old and new arguments from Bohr, Einstein, Von Neumann, Bohm, Bell and recent empirical results demonstrate the impossibility of underlaying quantum randomness with any traditional deterministic `reality'. The system CANNOT be viewed in any traditional deterministic way, and this HAS been ascertained as factually as any scientific statement I can think of. Traditional determinism has been forceably demoted from universal scientific principle to a limited methodology. "The confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an engine idling, not when it is doing work" - Wittgenstein -michael
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/01/85)
In article <759@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> ... The evidence for >> quantum uncertainty is stronger than just "we can determine no cause". >> This is not the place and I don't have the time to go into it (there was >> a Scientific American article dealing with some of the issues a couple of >> years back). But if you really believe in determinism, you are being every >> bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly >> accepted by those in the field. > >Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, >i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. >This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that >we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The >system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. Your knowledge is incomplete. First of all, quantum mechanics is a theory of how particles behave. There are results from quantum mechanics which are not explainable by *any* deterministic theory unless special relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is not a limit; indeed, there can be no limit to communications speeds. But the Lorentz transformations would still apply (they have been experimentally validated). The result would be causally linked events where depending on one's frame of reference, one or the other may be the first to occur. (Any possible joint cause would have to happen after one of the events in some frames of reference.) It might be possible to get some form of determinism out of such a theory, but only by severely stretching the meaning of determinism. This explanation is vastly oversimplified; the full explanation is if anything even wierder. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/02/85)
>>Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >>that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, >>i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. >>This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that >>we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The >>system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. - Padraig > There are many interpretations of just what QM represents. However, if > QM is philosophically unsatisfactory if it describes what we will > see when we look, rather than "what is there when we don't", is it not a > virtue that sentences expressing unobservable states are incapable of > formulation? Must science be bothered with the potential metaphysical > truth of questions like "Did George Washington sneeze on August 13, > 1773?". Would not Occam have approved of a theory that insists that > "States which are not accessible do not exist"? This is a very different kettle of fish from assuming the existence of particular states and assuming their particular effects so as to "get" you to your conclusion. Yes, Occam would be spinning if you suggested that that falls in line with the Razor. Furthermore, when you ask about whether you or George Washington or Genghis Khan sneezed on a certain date, you are suggesting the possibility of an extremely probable known quantity: human beings do sneeze. To assert that that is roughly equivalent to saying that speculations about phenomena that you have no basis for drafting a model of (solely because you have a particular conclusion in mind and build your axioms and models from there) doesn't sound very reasonable to me. It sounds mighty presumptive, which is why Occam would have discarded it. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/03/85)
>> ... The evidence for >> quantum uncertainty is stronger than just "we can determine no cause". >> This is not the place and I don't have the time to go into it (there was >> a Scientific American article dealing with some of the issues a couple of >> years back). But if you really believe in determinism, you are being every >> bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly >> accepted by those in the field. > >Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, >i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. This is not my understanding (important disclaimer: I am not a physicist). Bell's Inequality provides at least one example of an experimentally verifiable prediction that distinguishes between the simple inability to obtain an exact measurement, and one where there is no exactness to measure. IN SEARCH OF SCHROEDINGER'S CAT (author forgotten, damn it!) has an excellent discussion of Bell's Inequality, comprehensible to us laymen. Highly recommended. >This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that >we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The >system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. This is the basis of the so-called "hidden variable" theories. At least one experiment has been done (Alain Aspect, 1982) that attempts to decide between these theories and theories allowing real indeterminacy, by looking for Bell's Inequality. The results indicated real indeterminacy. While I certainly don't consider hidden variable theories "unscientific" on the basis of a single experiment, I would say that the weight of present evidence is currently against them. Similarly, I find nothing necessarily unscientific about hard determinism, but I do think that arguing for that position on the basis of physics is choosing the wrong weapons. As I've said before, I don't think quantum indeterminacy makes much of an argument for free will all by itself, but it does have some relevance when arguing with advocates of a strict classical determinism. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (10/04/85)
> In article <759@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > >> ... The evidence for > >> quantum uncertainty is stronger than just "we can determine no cause". > >> This is not the place and I don't have the time to go into it (there was > >> a Scientific American article dealing with some of the issues a couple of > >> years back). But if you really believe in determinism, you are being every > >> bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly > >> accepted by those in the field. > > > >Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says > >that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, > >i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. > >This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that > >we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The > >system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. > > Your knowledge is incomplete. First of all, quantum mechanics is a theory > of how particles behave. There are results from quantum mechanics > which are not explainable by *any* deterministic theory unless special > relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is not a limit; indeed, there > can be no limit to communications speeds. But the Lorentz transformations > would still apply (they have been experimentally validated). The result > would be causally linked events where depending on one's frame of reference, > one or the other may be the first to occur. (Any possible joint cause > would have to happen after one of the events in some frames of reference.) > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka > Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 My statement was based on the replies given to this question that I put to two Ph.D's in this area of physics. I would be interested in seeing a reference to the contrary. Padraig Houlahan.