Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: chance v determinism

  1. #1
    Grandmaster AntonioLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    15,794
    Blog Entries
    10
    Likes Received
    228
    Likes Given
    84

    chance v determinism

    In this context, the word “chance” connotes the chances of the appearance of certain random numbers for a given random distribution of numbers as logically defined in advanced modern mathematics, while the word “determinism” implies the confidence one would have on certain measured quantities in physics. The logical existence of the former is purely mathematical while the logical existence of the latter is purely physical. However, combining them together creates the mathematical science of statistics. Nonetheless, the mathematical science of statistics depends entirely on the theoretical validity of the mathematical theory of probability. Historically speaking, the mathematics of probability was first introduced by the 17th century French mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace (1749-1827) in 1812. Coincidently, this is in the same time period between 1799 and 1825 that Laplace completed his exceptional mathematical treatise on celestial mechanics with the French title Mécanique céleste. This treatise comprises the prior mathematical and physical discoveries of Newton, Leibniz, Clairaut, d’Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, and Laplace himself. It was duly noted that this 5-volume treatise was so complete that even Laplace’s immediate successors could not add little more to it. As for Laplace’s 1812 publication on the mathematical theory of probability the French title is given as Théorie analytique des probabilités. In the second edition published in 1814, Laplace included a now popular philosophical mathematical essay known in French as the Essai philosophique sur les probabilités. This essay purportedly contains the famous quote by Laplace saying to the effect that the future of the physical universe is completely determined by the past so that whosoever possesses the mathematical knowledge of all the physical states (otherwise, namely the ToE) of the universe at any given instant of time could also predict all its future states. In other words, Laplace absolutely believed in physical determinism. However, it is very important to make the distinction that this kind of determinism is solely derived from physical measurement and repeated accurate and correct calculations. In contradistinction, in the same philosophical essay of 1814, it is fair to say that Laplace has also alluded to the effect of the following quote taken from the The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, a mathematical compendium published by Princeton University Press in 2008: “Probability was the measure, not of the operations of chance in nature, for there are none, but of human ignorance of causes, which was to be reduced to virtual certainty by calculations.” Clearly, from this second quotation of probability mathematics, Laplace never lived to believe that “chance” is capable of providing physical meaning unless of course supported by physically meaningful calculations. Furthermore, the deciding calculations always come from sensible double-blind independent experimentations. Note that the significance of doubly blinded experimentations is to prevent inadvertently introducing human bias into the experiments. Hence, from the true implication of these two quotations regarding Laplace’s correct understanding of the mathematical theory of probability, he always believed that the mathematical theory of chance can truly be physically meaningful if and only if it is represented by a rational number, which is properly defined as the ratio of two positive integers such that the numerator must always be less than or equal to the denominator. This kind of rational numbers is technically called proper fractions. Eventually, by repeated experimentations and calculations, if the numerator becomes exactly equal to the denominator then and only then true physical determinism is rightfully attained. For a Gaussian normal distribution of random proper fractions, achieving absolute determinism means that the numerical value of the variance must be exactly zero. In quantum statistics, zero variance is properly represented by a generalized function known as the delta function, which is also known as the Dirac delta function of quantum mechanics. This special function is theoretically connected mathematically to the physical principle of uncertainty first discovered by Heisenberg and from repeated calculations all uncertainties can never be numerically less than an experimentally determined rationalized physical constant known as Planck’s constant of action.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  2. #2
    8th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,292
    Blog Entries
    13
    Likes Received
    58
    Likes Given
    13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    I don't see the versus laid out. I only see, largely, the history of one man laid out. I don't understand why people say Maxwell's Demon needs to remember anything. It doesn't have to remember every faster/slower particle/molecule. It only needs the function of allowing certain characteristics to pass. I don't see this requiring infinite memory. I'm not sure I see a clearly expressed opinion on the topic either. Just a lot of information.

    Anyhow, my favorite vs is Leplace's Vs. Maxwell's Demon.

    -"When you are silent it speaks, when you speak, it is silent. The great gate is wide open, and nobody is obstructing it.-"


  3. #3
    Grandmaster AntonioLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    15,794
    Blog Entries
    10
    Likes Received
    228
    Likes Given
    84


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Quote Originally Posted by Meem View Post
    I don't see the versus laid out. I only see, largely, the history of one man laid out. I don't understand why people say Maxwell's Demon needs to remember anything. It doesn't have to remember every faster/slower particle/molecule. It only needs the function of allowing certain characteristics to pass. I don't see this requiring infinite memory. I'm not sure I see a clearly expressed opinion on the topic either. Just a lot of information.[/video]
    Your reply is duly noted but not gladly appreciated. Your honest testimony is a good personal example of how many people there are still confused about the distinction between mathematics and physics. Although for understanding any physical concept one needs mathematics to describe it, there is no such logically valid example as using physics to describe a mathematical concept. From the second sentence of the 1st post it is clearly stated that: “The logical existence of the former [chance] is purely mathematical while the logical existence of the latter [determinism] is purely physical.” FYI, the formally correct but logically dry title would have been “Mathematics versus Physics.” IMO, Maxwell’s demon does not exist. If it does then the second law of thermodynamics would be seriously violated. Since this empirical law of classical thermodynamics also holds in the quantum realm of the microcosmos as well as for the global domain of the macrocosmos, as well as for the physical observables of the mesocosmos between them, it proves without any doubt that Maxwell’s Demon cannot exist anywhere in the physical universe. On the contrary, Maxwell’s Angel does physically exist. It is properly called thermonuclear fusion. This nuclear process keeps stars hot and makes life on cooler watery planets possible.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  4. #4
    8th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,292
    Blog Entries
    13
    Likes Received
    58
    Likes Given
    13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Hmm I am confused, didn't realize physics operated independently of mathematics as you have said, but then married them back together yourself. That is, indeed confusing. It was my understanding that math was a strong scientific manner of probing physics before conducting physical experiments. I mean I under stand that it doesn't rain ones and twos. That it rains, mostly water, on earth at least.

    From my prospective Antonio, "Maxwell's Demon" could very well be something like "Leplace's Demon" that resides outside of this dimension, you know sitting ontop of this box, and thinking outside of it. I understand, that you seem to think that chance is purely mathematical. Is that an established law of physics, and those are usually mathematical I believe? I do not know, you're very right. I am confused. I thought determinism is purely mathematical going forward, or backwards. The only physicality is now, the moment when the calculations about future or past take place.

    I still don't see how your belief that chance is purely mathematical and determinism purely physical really lays out a vs argument. Just seems like a statement still. Why is chance purely (non)physical in your opinion? Hmm, why is that some of maxwells angels turns some stars into black holes and other into supernovae (without collapse)? What's the variable in control of the mathematical chance?

    I did notice that you seemed to get hung up on angels and demons there. That reminds me of previous beliefs you had mentioned about God. If you believe there is no physical function to chance, then you seem to misunderstand your choice to believe in God and select your path to heaven or hell. I assume you believe in this choice?
    Last edited by Meem; 02-24-2017 at 12:32 AM. Reason: mobile post, missing a word here and there
    -"When you are silent it speaks, when you speak, it is silent. The great gate is wide open, and nobody is obstructing it.-"


  5. #5
    Grandmaster AntonioLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    15,794
    Blog Entries
    10
    Likes Received
    228
    Likes Given
    84


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Chance is simply the distribution of random rational numbers (specifically the use of proper fractions to represent probabilities). Determinism is the repeated occurrence of the same set of physical constants in any of the correct calculations involving the same physical constants derived from unbias experiments in physics. I agree with what Einstein said that God does not play dice. God is more subtle than what you and me can possibly understand but God's actions are never malicious. Maxwell's demon was invented by Maxwell in order for him to investigate how the second law of classical thermodynamics can be violated.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  6. #6
    8th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,292
    Blog Entries
    13
    Likes Received
    58
    Likes Given
    13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Although you never really answer questions, I appreciate the replys. I'll leave you to it Antonio.

    Have a good one.
    -"When you are silent it speaks, when you speak, it is silent. The great gate is wide open, and nobody is obstructing it.-"


  7. #7
    Grandmaster AntonioLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    15,794
    Blog Entries
    10
    Likes Received
    228
    Likes Given
    84


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Quote Originally Posted by Meem View Post
    Although you never really answer questions, I appreciate the replys. I'll leave you to it Antonio.

    Have a good one.
    Although you never really ask questions that you don’t already have the answers to. However, if you ask sensible questions pertaining to math and physics, I could possibly answer them but there is no guarantee I have all the correct answers. Nonetheless, understanding correct answers to math and physics requires a fair amount of background knowledge of math and physics; otherwise the correct answers would not make any sense. From personal observations of your forum activities through the years, it is quite obvious you only possess superficial knowledge of math and physics. For in-depth hardcore knowledge of math and physics, you would need to learn from professional teachers at the schools, colleges, and universities of higher learning. Whether you like it or not, I will continue to do research and to do posting here at TOEQuest (assuming it continues to be online, but my other option is to resume posting at www.physicsforums.com). FYI, I’m not here to please anyone’s fancy or to condone nonsense postings about math and physics. As you must note there remain postings of nonsense on math and physics here at TOEQuest and the fact bothers me allowing this nonsense to continue, IMO, which can only drive serious members away. If you seriously want to learn math and physics online then I would suggest for you becoming a member of www.physicsforums.com. It is a free site like TOEQuest but there are true member professionals who can help you on questions about math and physics, etc.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  8. #8
    8th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,292
    Blog Entries
    13
    Likes Received
    58
    Likes Given
    13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    Although you never really ask questions that you don’t already have the answers to. However, if you ask sensible questions pertaining to math and physics, I could possibly answer them but there is no guarantee I have all the correct answers. Nonetheless, understanding correct answers to math and physics requires a fair amount of background knowledge of math and physics; otherwise the correct answers would not make any sense. From personal observations of your forum activities through the years, it is quite obvious you only possess superficial knowledge of math and physics. For in-depth hardcore knowledge of math and physics, you would need to learn from professional teachers at the schools, colleges, and universities of higher learning. Whether you like it or not, I will continue to do research and to do posting here at TOEQuest (assuming it continues to be online, but my other option is to resume posting at www.physicsforums.com). FYI, I’m not here to please anyone’s fancy or to condone nonsense postings about math and physics. As you must note there remain postings of nonsense on math and physics here at TOEQuest and the fact bothers me allowing this nonsense to continue, IMO, which can only drive serious members away. If you seriously want to learn math and physics online then I would suggest for you becoming a member of www.physicsforums.com. It is a free site like TOEQuest but there are true member professionals who can help you on questions about math and physics, etc.

    Again, thanks for the reply.


    My dearest Antonio,

    the most interesting things about math and physics are, as of yet, not fully described or understood by the founding fathers, members, or institutions of the most hardcore physics and mathematics nature. I'm not asking you to please my fancy when I say, I don't understand how you can view chance as purely mathematical... when chance is necessary physical requirement of choice or freewill, that you believe you have in going to heaven or hell. I'm never going to be a mathematician or physicist Antonio but, I do understand well enough to hold a philosophical conversation about the matters of chance and determinism.


    im still amazed that you are somehow able to satisfy your beliefs in choice of heaven or hell and believing that only determinism is present in the physical world. Whatever physical world means.


    My head is 99% empty space, pay me no mind.


    Have a good day.
    Last edited by Meem; 02-27-2017 at 04:14 PM. Reason: i hate phone posting.
    -"When you are silent it speaks, when you speak, it is silent. The great gate is wide open, and nobody is obstructing it.-"


  9. #9
    8th degree Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,292
    Blog Entries
    13
    Likes Received
    58
    Likes Given
    13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Math is one language of reasoning of the physical, not the only ... in my opinion. I am not sure how to translate what I visualize into math. I'll just stick to 3D story telling and leave you at it, yet again.
    -"When you are silent it speaks, when you speak, it is silent. The great gate is wide open, and nobody is obstructing it.-"


  10. #10
    Grandmaster AntonioLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    15,794
    Blog Entries
    10
    Likes Received
    228
    Likes Given
    84


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Re: chance v determinism

    Quote Originally Posted by Meem View Post

    ...the most interesting things about math and physics are, as of yet, not fully described or understood by the founding fathers, members, or institutions of the most hardcore physics and mathematics nature.
    Unless you live in the past inside a windowless box, this myopic shallow comment is absolutely foolish and false representation of the exponential progress in science. Continued advancement of science’s instrumentation nearly completely demystified all interests of science. For example, the discovery of DNA molecules, the success of the Human Genome Project, detection of the Higgs boson, the discovery of neutron stars, quasars, and indirect evidence of black holes and exoplanets, etc. FYI, the mindset of most scientists is that if something piques their interest and curiosity, they do immediate systematic investigation until the mystery is resolved. Scientists never sit around chatting about what is interesting and doing nothing. They sprang into action right-away applying the scientific method of discovering new phenomena, and new math and new physics. Although the founding fathers of science never have the luxury of precision instruments that modern scientists enjoy today, they carefully recorded their findings in science journals and books, for later investigators to carry on. Newton did it (his legacies include the publication of the Principia). Faraday did it (discovered electromagnetic induction), Maxwell did it (2-volume treatise on electromagnetism), Planck did it (quantum theory of energy), Einstein did it (special and general relativity), Watson and Crick did it (molecular structures of DNA), etc. Today, institutes of science all set goals for research, for example, NIH does research on health and welfare of all living things, NASA explores outer space, CERN explores inner space, etc. Some of the more advanced tools of science are LASERs, CCDs, computers, cellphones, remote control cars, hypersonic airplanes, wireless comm, satcomm, weather sat, satTV, drones, microminiaturization, robotics, artificial intelligence, GPS, etc. IMO, one’s religious belief absolutely does not interfere with one’s scientific interest. On the contrary, a sincere desire to understand how Nature works is a proper way to appreciate God’s creations. Nonetheless, in the global affairs among human beings, what personally saddens me is the evilness (desire to destroy oneself and another) that lingers within approximately a third of the global populace. One of the excuses that evil people presented for justifying their evil actions is the will to survive. This is not a survival of the physical body but the survival of an idea. In political science, it’s called an ideology. In many parts of the world, this ideology is often disguised as a religion.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •