Did God Create Chaos?

[`mud]

to Legion,
In my posts I claimed nothing, except that your formulae are deplorable in their comparisons to real formulae.
There is no way to 'demonstrate' that which I understand not !
I am not trying to insult anyone, except for your continued practice of mis-using of applied formulae.
Once again...forgive me for not understanding the applications that you try to use to connect these relationships.
You might try to explain more fully the meaning of 'chaos' in understandable terms.
I think that would be a good start.
If you are feeling 'stings', I apologize. But....maybe you could explain yourself more properly, fewer words....more meaning and explanations.
~
I doubt that I'm getting anywhere here, so I'll apoligize to you and everyone else.....
carry on as you will.
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In my posts I claimed nothing, except that your formulae are deplorable in their comparisons to real formulae.

Which, as insulting as that is, is nothing compared to your claims that I plagiarized anything in any way whatsoever.

Once again...forgive me for not understanding the applications that you try to use to connect these relationships.

There are infinitely many things that I don't understand, and some of these I know I don't. When I know, I don't accuse another of ignorance and plagiarism. That you disagree with me is fine. That you disagree with how I express my views is perfectly acceptable. I don't even mind being insulted in most cases (I have insulted myself here many times, and often not in jest). There are few things about myself that I think might be worth anything. You have attacked one of these. I would appreciate the evidence you base such an attack on.

 

[`mud]

to Legion,
I should ask what 'evidence' was that ? That one that I used to attack you,
the 'one' of all the areas that I mentioned.
You are being confusing again, or I'm really ignorant.
List your most important areas and I'll try to apologize to each and every one,
if I can understand the objects mentioned.
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

to Legion,
I should ask what 'evidence' was that ?

Evidence of plagiarism .

 

[`mud]

Legion,
I said:
"A lot of what you say is sort of like plagiarism of some noted physicist's theories on estimates of un-known entities." (emphasis added).
~
As to that insinuation...I will apologize...
but the statement was referring to the practice not to the action.
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

Legion,
I said:
"A lot of what you say is sort of like plagiarism of some noted physicist's theories on estimates of un-known entities." (emphasis added).
~
As to that insinuation...I will apologize...
but the statement was referring to the practice not to the action.
~
'mud

I think the problem here is the use of the word "plagiarism". Plagiarism is a very serious offense in science and authoring in general. Plagiarism means that someone stole the works of someone else and didn't even bother to give the original creators the credits. It's like me writing a book, calling it "Romeo and Juliet", and it's about a love story gone wrong. They all die in the end. And claim that this is my book. I invented it. And I have no clue at all who this Shakespeare is.

If Legion is guilty of something, it is not plagiarism in any shape or form. Not even sort'a or kind'a. Because he always cites the sources. He quotes them. He doesn't claim that it's his own work. He's very meticulous making sure all information is there who wrote it and where to find the original works. It's basically the total opposite of plagiarism. That's why he's upset right now, because he's done the total opposite, and it's a very serious thing to call an author/scientist. It's like cracking mother jokes to someone. "Ya momma is a plagiarist! Y'all is adopted."

 

[`mud]

In general, I've apologized about four or five times now to Legion and everyone else.
I was set back to the use of 'borrowed' formulated comparisons to other works.
I shouldn't have used that comparison so I will apologize once more.
Sorry, to Legion for the accusation of plagiarism.
I know, I know...I'm really stupid.....and totally confused !
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think the problem here is the use of the word "plagiarism". Plagiarism is a very serious offense in science and authoring in general. Plagiarism means that someone stole the works of someone else and didn't even bother to give the original creators the credits. It's like me writing a book, calling it "Romeo and Juliet", and it's about a love story gone wrong. They all die in the end. And claim that this is my book. I invented it. And I have no clue at all who this Shakespeare is.

If Legion is guilty of something, it is not plagiarism in any shape or form. Not even sort'a or kind'a. Because he always cites the sources. He quotes them. He doesn't claim that it's his own work. He's very meticulous making sure all information is there who wrote it and where to find the original works. It's basically the total opposite of plagiarism. That's why he's upset right now, because he's done the total opposite, and it's a very serious thing to call an author/scientist. It's like cracking mother jokes to someone. "Ya momma is a plagiarist! Y'all is adopted."

To plagiarize and paraphrase (but openly), "I am not a man of many words, but I thank you." You've expressed what I would seek to better than I could.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I've apologized about four or five times now to Legion and everyone else.

Then let us forget this matter and start anew as if what transpired had not (or, at least, what did transpire was not meant to be interpreted as it was nor intended to be). My apologies, and let us move on.

 

[Gambit]

Copenhagen interpretation in question. An old idea of pilot waves (bouncing droplets) is resurfacing, and would indicate a deterministic system underlying quantum. If I understand the article right.

All mechanistic processes are necessarily deterministic, but all deterministic processes are not necessarily mechanistic.

 

[Ouroboros]

All mechanistic processes are necessarily deterministic, but all deterministic processes are not necessarily mechanistic.

And? I'm not sure how that relates to the article. Can you expand on those thoughts a bit more?

 

[Gambit]

And? I'm not sure how that relates to the article. Can you expand on those thoughts a bit more?

The Bohmian interpretation (the "pilot wave theory") is a deterministic interpretation, but not a mechanistic one.

Hiley has emphasized that the quantum potential, for Bohm, was "a key element in gaining insights into what could underlie the quantum formalism. Bohm was convinced by his deeper analysis of this aspect of the approach that the theory could not be mechanical. Rather, it is organic in the sense of Whitehead. Namely, that it was the whole that determined the properties of the individual particles and their relationship, not the other way round."[76]

(source: Wikipedia: Quantum potential)

Just for the sake of clarity. I argued that quantum events are random. But I qualified this claim by explicitly stating "according to the Copenhagen interpretation." I never argued that there isn't any deterministic interpretations of QM. There are many different interpretations of QM. But the Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation accepted by the majority of physicists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But I qualified this claim by explicitly stating "according to the Copenhagen interpretation."

Which you never defined, but did succeed in avoiding multiple challenges to do so while neatly side-stepping the issue of whether there is any real CI and, if so, how it relates to the so-called standard/orthodox interpretation.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Bohmian interpretation (the "pilot wave theory") is a deterministic interpretation, but not a mechanistic one.

I'm just not sure where the "mechanistic" term came into play. The article didn't mention it.

Just for the sake of clarity. I argued that quantum events are random. But I qualified this claim by explicitly stating "according to the Copenhagen interpretation."

Yeah. I got that. You were very precise about that you were talking about the CI. You have no arguments from me there. Actually, you have no arguments from me at all since I don't know the answers or even have much of opinion either way when it comes to quantum mechanics.

I never argued that there isn't any deterministic interpretations of QM. There are many different interpretations of QM. But the Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation accepted by the majority of physicists.

I saw somewhere a statistics that only 42% or something like that accept the CI. The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics | Sean Carroll

I saw the report too that this bloggers data was based on, but I got the impression that the data set was way small. It was made during some convention, and not done at a larger scale.

Anyway, if the fluid explanations proves to be correct, it does take away some of the randomness and chance (not all, but some). You get something they call path-memory. Waves interacting with each other and ultimately create all the quantum effects. I don't know. Either way, considering that there are 10 different models right now, I'd say there's a lot to be discovered and questioned before we settle for one theory.

 

[Gambit]

I'm just not sure where the "mechanistic" term came into play. The article didn't mention it.

The relevance is that a deterministic interpretation does not necessarily support a materialistic interpretation. Skeptics are always trying to downplay the anomalies of QM (unless they are attempting to argue for "spontaneous creation ex nihilo").

 

[viole]

The Bohmian interpretation (the "pilot wave theory") is a deterministic interpretation, but not a mechanistic one.



Just for the sake of clarity. I argued that quantum events are random. But I qualified this claim by explicitly stating "according to the Copenhagen interpretation." I never argued that there isn't any deterministic interpretations of QM. There are many different interpretations of QM. But the Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation accepted by the majority of physicists.

Not anymore:

Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[34]according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[35] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.[36][37][38] Often, as is the case with the 4 referenced sources, the acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation as the preferred view of the underlying nature was below 50% amongst the surveyed.

Source: wikipedia.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

The relevance is that a deterministic interpretation does not necessarily support a materialistic interpretation.

Materialistic, mechanistic, I'm not sure why any of those terms came into the discussion.

Skeptics are always trying to downplay the anomalies of QM (unless they are attempting to argue for "spontaneous creation ex nihilo").

Skeptics of what?

The fluid doesn't speak for or against God, ex nihilo, naturalism, mechanism, or any of those things. The only thing we can take from the article and research is that there seems to be mathematical models that fit better than CI.

 

[Gambit]

The fluid doesn't speak for or against God, ex nihilo, naturalism, mechanism, or any of those things. The only thing we can take from the article and research is that there seems to be mathematical models that fit better than CI.

But David Bohm does speak against mechanism. (I have already cited documentation to support that claim.) Also, the Bohmian interpretation supports panpsychism.

"Even an electron has at least a rudimentary mental pole, respresented mathematically by the quantum potential." (source: pg. 387 "The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory" by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley)

 

[Ouroboros]

But David Bohm does speak against mechanism. (I have already cited documentation to support that claim.) Also, the Bohmian interpretation supports panpsychism.

Uh...??? I'm not sure at all where you're going right now.

So you're saying that the mathematical model that's been developed as of recent based on experiments is wrong because Bohm speaks against mechanism? And it's wrong because is supports panpsychism? Or are you saying it's wrong because it doesn't suggest atheism or theism but rather just suggests a more detailed understanding of the underlying principles of quantum mechanics?

I don't know. Right now I get the feeling you're out in the left field somewhere and playing a different game. I didn't say anything about theism v atheism, nor did I say anything about if it was mechanistic or not.

What's your end game here? I'm a bit lost on what you're trying to say. You're obviously trying to hint at something here, but I'm not sure what it is. Are you saying that if the Bohm interpretation is true, therefore God must exist? Well, if that's your view, you can bring it up in another thread. I'm not interested in another metaphysical philosophical discussion about God's existence. This thread was focused on chaos/randomness and where it came/comes from.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Bohmian interpretation (the "pilot wave theory") is a deterministic interpretation, but not a mechanistic one.

"Bohmian mechanics is often said to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which should indicate redundancy, i.e., that it is merely an interpretation. But Bohmian mechanics is not an interpretation of anything." (emphasis added)
Dürr, D., & Teufel, S. (2009). Bohmian Mechanics: The Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Theory (Fundamental Theories of Physics). Springer.

"We see, then, that the behaviour of the world is not perfectly determined by any possible purely mechanical or purely quantitative line of causal connection."
Bohm, D. (1957). Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. Routledge.

And just to show I'm not quote-mining a single line from Bohm's most subtle treatment of causation and determinism and thereby misrepresenting him:

"Bohm felt that the situation called for a very careful, more philosophical study of the question of causality and chance, and this resulted in his book Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, which was published in 1957. His basic proposal was that both causality and chance are always needed whenever we are dealing with some limited domain of the physical world. Thus, for example, he was not claiming that the quantum level was completely deterministic. Instead, the determinism suggested by the ontological interpretation ought to be seen as a statistical average of chance fluctuations at a deeper level. A closer study of these chance fluctuations might, in turn, reveal some more lawful behavior, which might, however, turn out to be a statistical average of a yet deeper level of chance fluctuations, and so on. Bohm felt that there was no need to assume a fundamental level, and thus the question whether the fundamental level is deterministic or indeterministic would not even arise" (emphasis added)
Pylkkänen, P. T. (2007). Mind, Matter and the Implicate Order. Springer.