Chance vs Divinity

[austintorn@aol.com]

Quantum physics thinks that there is randomness, even "showing" no pre-existing qualities of 'it' (reality) until the 'bit' has to give up its information; however, in my reciprocal/symmetric series going on in Prof's thread, part of which was in Fredrick's, all is real (as Einstein wished) and there is no possible randomness in the way that a particle or a force or a photon could just go and do anything that it wants to in violation of the universe's balance.

It can't, for this type of modification would not conserve energy and would upset the whole equation of balance and symmetry. So, as bad as random would have been, we can now rest easy—but "easy" then means that there can be no modification to what must go on, which is determinism. Entities must act as they do.

I'll take determinism, but remember it is only of the instant, for learning, at least for us, at least gives a wider range of selections for choice, which we would always want to reflect what we have become, not some random air-headed choices from dice rolls. Note that the opposite of "determined" is "undetermined".

So, someone could learn something today and then have a better, although still fixed, unfree will tomorrow.

"Determined" though, does not necessarily have purpose behind it, for these "behind its" can't really go on forever.

Now, if two shirts are about the same, I'll then take a dice roll on whichever one to wear, as the choice is not really a choice since there is little or no difference. (But it affects the future as in what shirt gets washed, and the distance to the empty hangar, if that matters, and so, maybe, just maybe, but who knows, some particles events that are so close as to go either way may give off a hint of randomness).

[labelwench]

Now, if two shirts are about the same, I'll then take a dice roll on whichever one to wear, as the choice is not really a choice since there is little or no difference.

Originally posted by Austintorn

Something about your little analogy tugs at my mind....for no two shirts are exactly the same, though our perception may be that they are near identical.

The more subtle the powers of one's observation, the more evident the difference.

From flowers, to brown free-range eggs, to the whorl of hair on my horses' forehead, the more closely one examines a thing, the more distinct it becomes.

Which is why women, when we shop, will try on both shirts, pants, etc. though they state they are of the same brand, size and color, for often one is acceptable and the other is not, due to differences which are not discernible until more closely examined by fit.

The same holds true with any observation and our comprehension of it.

We examine each for how it fits our 'understanding form', whereas the article of clothing is examined as to how it suits our physical form.

In this manner we accept or reject ideas at one point, which may become acceptable at another, as our 'understanding form' gains or sheds various bits of data in a constant process of perceptual and conceptual remodeling.

For most people, the intellectual remodeling never ends, as each observation finds it's place or displaces another, a lifelong process.

[labelwench]

I admit that I can't suggest anything other than working with what one has and hope for the best....

Originally posted by SteveA

If it's good enough for the universe, who am I to be a critic?

Work with what one has.....and we have far more to work with than we, as yet, have an appreciation of.....

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yes, LW. I, too, have a nagging suspicion that there can be no real 50-50 ties, especially for particles since the resolution would be infinitely fine.

(A man might pick any old spotless white shirt, but his woman would spot a thread hanging out somewhere and make him change it.)

[labelwench]

Yes, LW. I, too, have a nagging suspicion that there can be no real 50-50 ties, especially for particles since the resolution would be infinitely fine.

(A man might pick any old spotless white shirt, but his woman would spot a thread hanging out somewhere and make him change it.)

Even with the particles, depending on the perspective from which they are viewed, the constituents may prove identical, yet our perception of same may bid us wonder. We need instruments of measure and confidence in those instruments, as our senses tend to distort.

When viewing the feet of a horse just trimmed, the hooves on the far side will appear to be of different size, an optical illusion, when one stands front and center, equidistant, or uses ones' hoof level to verify angle and length of hoof wall.

[austintorn@aol.com]

And so my stomach's tiny bulge always seems smaller to me than to others; however, in a mirror I can see what they mean.

So the fates of particles energies, collisions, and whatnot perhaps goes on exactly as they must, but do we as humans some levels above have any immunity to that (after all, atoms of a type are rather identical in function) in any way that reduces determinism in any way to something in-between that's not as bad as randomness?

Should I believe in quantum randomness only half the time and in the absolute real happenings the other half of the time?

Probably wouldn't work, as it would be kind of a fake thing half the time.

[labelwench]

And so my stomach's tiny bulge always seems smaller to me than to others; however, in a mirror I can see what they mean.

So the fates of particles energies, collisions, and whatnot perhaps goes on exactly as they must, but do we as humans some levels above have any immunity to that (after all, atoms of a type are rather identical in function) in any way that reduces determinism in any way to something in-between that's not as bad as randomness?

Should I believe in quantum randomness only half the time and in the absolute real happenings the other half of the time?

Probably wouldn't work, as it would be kind of a fake thing half the time.

It's a perceptual thing, all of the time. We cannot separate ourselves from our point of view, though we strive for that 'arm's length' vision to know things 'as they are.'

Ever we perceive them as they are, in relation to our viewing of them.

Can we ever achieve a measure that is identical to all?

With as much certainty as determining the starting point of a circle......

[austintorn@aol.com]

And… Oh, darn, here comes a bunch of various subjective gods and god beliefs all clashing with each other…

The Gods Meet Each Other

I next encountered all the individual Ones,
The specialized Gods of all the Religions.

They didn’t get along at all, not even for an instant,
For all they had in common was their intolerance
Of the others’ greatly erroneous and unjustifiable beliefs
That clashed with their own, for tolerance as a relief
Was truly NOT an attitude the jealous Gods endorsed.

The followers of each God thought that their own
Irrational embrace of myth trumped the others’ known,
And so this led to many of the religious groans.

I watched the Gods battling for a while, steadfast,
In the present, as well as in the distant past,
Their followers’ beliefs scripting the actions
Of conflicts that led to dying for untestable propositions
About where everyone came from and was going to:

Metaphysical Martyrdoms
Conflicted with the Divine Book of Revelations.

Deuteronomy 13:7-11
Stoned those disbelieving in Yahweh,
Killing them, while the Koran eliminated many infidels.

India and Pakistan, different countries domiciled,
Because the beliefs of Islam could not be reconciled
With those of Hinduism, poised themselves at the brink
Of nuclear war, merely because they disagreed, rife,
Over some supernatural ‘facts’ concerning the afterlife.

Karmas ran over Dogmas.

Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s constitution,
To stamp out the growing Islamic militant coalition.

Palestine’s Jews and Muslims scuffled on;
Balkan Orthodox Serbians dueled
With the Catholic Croatians,
As well as with the Bosnian/Albanian Muslims;
Northern Ireland Protestants warred with the Catholics;

Sudan Muslims discorded with the Christians;
Sri Lankas’s Sinhalese Buddhists
Went against the Tamil Hindus;
Caucasus Orthodox Russians and Chechen Muslims
Exterminated each other and their kin;

Iraq’s Sunnis and Shias massacred each other
For some very slight dogmatic differences.

I interrupted their skirmishing and said in haste,
“What about tolerance and respect for the other faiths?”

They all answered at once and said, in unison’s beef,
“That’s just political talk. If we tolerated other beliefs,
That would be akin to recognizing them readily
As having some credibility, which they certainly do not.

“We are saved and they are all doomed, in peril;
We can’t have them exerting influence in the world.”

“So,” I said, trying to make some small talk,
“I’ve heard that You’ve each written a book
That makes an exclusive claim as to its infallibility.
Congratulations to each of You on being published.
All have made the bestseller list;
However, I have respectfully shelved all of them
Next to the Egyptian Book of the Dead
And Ovid’s Metamorphoses
In the contradictory book and Bible section.

“Hey, how about getting modern and making a film?
I know that a book was a great thing way back,
But a moving picture is worth 10,000 still pictures
Which are in turn each worth a thousand words.”

“Indeed, we will each be divinely inspiring a movie
That will soon be playing in a theater near you.”

“Wait, Guys, I take it back,” I said with alarm,
“Are not all your children doing enough harm
By fighting over your books and morality plays?
Will people now die for another media—the movies?”

They ignored me and fought on, with their kind,
Unable to see but through their own ‘right’ minds,
Doing the opposite of their teachings of love)
Which they were especially and paradoxically out of.

Unfortunately, they now represented the largest threat
That human kind has ever imposed against itself—
All due to differences regarding some very improbable
And differing notions about the nature of the universe.

[SteveA]

Yes, LW. I, too, have a nagging suspicion that there can be no real 50-50 ties, especially for particles since the resolution would be infinitely fine.

(A man might pick any old spotless white shirt, but his woman would spot a thread hanging out somewhere and make him change it.)

I think there's something very true in this.

Consider that physical measurements are in terms of quantities or ratios of things. It's all numbers and not the specific qualities someone experiences.

So let's assume for a second that there exist two types of particles that are in equal distribution around the universe and I'll just call them the left and right particles.

Now if someone wanted to refer to what they saw as a left particle, unless there was some way to isolate some biased set of them, there wouldn't appear any way to tell someone else which of the two types of particles you were referring to and any quantities of them you described could be interpreted to match the other particle.

Notice that this swap could be made and never go noticed either as once you established that the other person knew which particle you were referring to then referring to the "other" particle would similarly just swap their reference, yet the entire time left and right could be backwards.

It appears that in order to physically communicate about specific things various forms of asymmetry need to exist in order that specific references or landmarks can be established in common.

[SteveA]

It's a perceptual thing, all of the time. We cannot separate ourselves from our point of view, though we strive for that 'arm's length' vision to know things 'as they are.'

Ever we perceive them as they are, in relation to our viewing of them.

Can we ever achieve a measure that is identical to all?

With as much certainty as determining the starting point of a circle......

Sorry for my technical ramblings, but as a little thought experiment that I thought was interesting:

How do we determine when a circle repeats? Well it appears we have to see a repetition of something, and in this case it would be at some point where we began.

Now consider that this means we had to see one point occur twice, in order that we could determine it was a closed/repeating/cyclic form.

If we looked at something like a square with 4 corners, how do we know we've counted all the corners? Well we have to establish a pathway that we can assure passes through all the points and when we see a repetition or something else that denotes an end, then we can assume we've constructed the set.

Well if we look at how many points it would take to describe a square, it's actually 5 in memory and this appears true for determining the size of any set - if we had some limit to the number of things that could be remembered or checked for repetitions, then it would appear that the largest "closed" set would have to be at least one less than the number of positions available within that memory (... and an interesting extension of this is that something equal to the size of that memory could appear to never repeat and be infinite).

... just another possibly interesting tidbit.