Putting aside the term God, would you agree?

[Sleeppy]

One of the qualifications of faith is not harassment, theft and lying

I want to make God happy as my mother and father
This is my right. I feel this and I see that God sets the Highest Example. He is the Mighty, the Wise.

All incentives fall if God is Not satisfied with me

How you will celebrate in any occasion while the audience are resentful of your fallen morals
I will feel something wrong

GOD bless you all

Not lying is achievable for you.

But, it doesn't come by worshipping faith, but by worshipping God. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no; do not hold to speculation, but test your speculations and worship in truth, the all-knowing God.

God has no need for faith, does he? So what is your example?

 

[Sleeppy]

No. The effect tends to be small for most situations. it is a quantum effect.



They do. It is a measured effect.



Simply wrong. Quantum mechanics is an acausal theory of physics and is fundamental. It has been extensively tested and even some of its more unusual predictions have been verified (in particular, those related to causality).

QM is *by far* the best scientific theory we have. The fact that is is not a causal theory needs to be taken seriously and is definitely a 'suggestion' that things happen without a cause in many cases. If anything, causality is a sum of probabilistic effects--it comes about because probabilistic laws lead to predictable long-term averages.

No. They appear to be without cause.

What is probability? What are probabilities based on?

 

[Polymath257]

No. They appear to be without cause.

What is probability? What are probabilities based on?

Oh, the probabilities are determined, often quite precisely. But the specific outcome is NOT determined. And there is nothing that determines which of the possible outcomes becomes reality.

No, it *isn't* just that they appear to be without cause. if there were causality, certain things necessarily follow in terms of correlations. Those correlations are violated in the real world. Ergo, causality is false.

 

[Sleeppy]

Oh, the probabilities are determined, often quite precisely. But the specific outcome is NOT determined. And there is nothing that determines which of the possible outcomes becomes reality.

No, it *isn't* just that they appear to be without cause. if there were causality, certain things necessarily follow in terms of correlations. Those correlations are violated in the real world. Ergo, causality is false.

1) Determined by what?

2) Certain things follow if you know 100% what you're looking at. Thing is, we don't have the entirety of the known universe figured out. We have guesses/theories that seem to work some (or if you prefer, most) of the time, ergo, your probabilities.

 

[j1i]

Not lying is achievable for you.

But, it doesn't come by worshipping faith, but by worshipping God. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no; do not hold to speculation, but test your speculations and worship in truth, the all-knowing God.

God has no need for faith, does he? So what is your example?

Why you get paid salary for you in a job without work?
I will Dismissal you from the work

So why does God keep you alive?
You will catch your spirit and be hidden from the universe
Therefore, we must thank God so that we may continue to live without punishment

So our presence in the universe is linked to work

Faith in God alone without anyone is a sincere thanks to God
Thanks to him
Thanksgiving by sincerity

For if you attach the virtue of your existence and your life to others, this is a sin and not the sincerity of God and insulting him also

Try to let any company lend you money
Do not return it to the company but return it to individuals in the company
Will the loan be repaid?

with respect
hug

 

[exchemist]

1) Determined by what?

2) Certain things follow if you know 100% what you're looking at. Thing is, we don't have the entirety of the known universe figured out. We have guesses/theories that seem to work some (or if you prefer, most) of the time, ergo, your probabilities.

Sounds to me as if you are with Einstein in the belief - and it can be only a belief - that "God does not play dice".

People have tried many kinds of "Hidden Variable" theories to get at "something behind" the indeterminacy of quantum theory and thus restore determinism to our picture of physics. So far none have been successful.

So, while it is the case that in science all "truth" is only provisional, the best model of reality we have is one that includes uncaused events. So Einstein was apparently wrong about this and God, to the best of our knowledge, does play dice. That is the state of the art, today.

P.S. As to your question "determined by what", the answer is "determined by quantum theory". Quantum theory can specify exactly the probability of, for example, detecting an electron in a certain volume of space, but it also tells you it is impossible to determine exactly where, in that space, it will be detected.

 

[Polymath257]

1) Determined by what?

The probabilities are determined by the possible arrangements of the particles in the system.

2) Certain things follow if you know 100% what you're looking at. Thing is, we don't have the entirety of the known universe figured out. We have guesses/theories that seem to work some (or if you prefer, most) of the time, ergo, your probabilities.

No. Even if you knew 100% about the system, it is *still* not possible to say which alternative will actually happen. It is *still* a matter of probabilities. Some events (most, in fact) are not determined by previous events.

 

[Sleeppy]

Sounds to me as if you are with Einstein in the belief - and it can be only a belief - that "God does not play dice".

People have tried many kinds of "Hidden Variable" theories to get at "something behind" the indeterminacy of quantum theory and thus restore determinism to our picture of physics. So far none have been successful.

So, while it is the case that in science all "truth" is only provisional, the best model of reality we have is one that includes uncaused events. So Einstein was apparently wrong about this and God, to the best of our knowledge, does play dice. That is the state of the art, today.

P.S. As to your question "determined by what", the answer is "determined by quantum theory". Quantum theory can specify exactly the probability of, for example, detecting an electron in a certain volume of space, but it also tells you it is impossible to determine exactly where, in that space, it will be detected.

That's not an answer. That's circular reasoning.

 

[Sleeppy]

The probabilities are determined by the possible arrangements of the particles in the system.



No. Even if you knew 100% about the system, it is *still* not possible to say which alternative will actually happen. It is *still* a matter of probabilities. Some events (most, in fact) are not determined by previous events.

1) Circular reasoning.

2) More circular reasoning. We don't know 100% what exists, and what their properties are, so we can't say definitively what will or won't occur. Probability is an attempt to explain that reality, placing a finish line where there isn't one.

You're using determinism to a point, and then giving up.

 

[Sleeppy]

Why you get paid salary for you in a job without work?
I will Dismissal you from the work

So why does God keep you alive?
You will catch your spirit and be hidden from the universe
Therefore, we must thank God so that we may continue to live without punishment

So our presence in the universe is linked to work

Faith in God alone without anyone is a sincere thanks to God
Thanks to him
Thanksgiving by sincerity

For if you attach the virtue of your existence and your life to others, this is a sin and not the sincerity of God and insulting him also

Try to let any company lend you money
Do not return it to the company but return it to individuals in the company
Will the loan be repaid?

with respect
hug

Then you are aware that free will is an illusion?

 

[exchemist]

That's not an answer. That's circular reasoning.

I'm afraid you will need to elaborate a bit, to show me how the "circular reasoning" arises.

All I am saying - I think - is that nature behaves as if there are uncaused events and so our model of nature is that there ARE uncaused events.

If there is no evidence for a cause for such events, there is no reason to hypothesise that there is one (Ockham's Razor).

It seems to me you are - for some reason - taking it as axiomatic that everything MUST have a cause. But you cannot justify that assumption and it is not one shared by modern physics.

 

[Polymath257]

1) Circular reasoning.

2) More circular reasoning. We don't know 100% what exists, and what their properties are, so we can't say definitively what will or won't occur. Probability is an attempt to explain that reality, placing a finish line where there isn't one.

You're using determinism to a point, and then giving up.

It is NOT circular reasoning. It is reasoning by means of contradiction, which is valid.

We are reasoning based on what we can observe. We don't need to know 100% what exists to eliminate the existence in particular instances.

The probabilities are what are predicted based on the best theory we have at this point. And that theory is NOT deterministic: it is probabilistic. And it works by predicting the results of observations.

 

[j1i]

Then you are aware that free will is an illusion?

Welcome my dear brother
Every creature has a role to play on the planet and has a certain benefit or negative partially
Man has freedom of belief and has the freedom to believe and has the freedom to imagine
Since our ancestors were Prophet jesus Moses, the Prophet Muhammad, David, Jacob, and Abraham
They advised us to believe in the origin existence of absolute power (maximum first one of existence) that is the basis of existence for everything

When we shake hands historically,
We shake hands with the right hand
I think shaking hands with the right hand is a good way to express love
But some say freedom of will leads us to think about shaking hands with the right leg

As well as faith in the one God as in the Jews and Christians without Jesus and Muslims
We took it from our forebears and they are aware but this science can not easy be scientifically proven

May God bless you
amen

 

[Sleeppy]

Welcome my dear brother
Every creature has a role to play on the planet and has a certain benefit or negative partially
Man has freedom of belief and has the freedom to believe and has the freedom to imagine
Since our ancestors were Prophet jesus Moses, the Prophet Muhammad, David, Jacob, and Abraham
They advised us to believe in the origin existence of absolute power (maximum first one of existence) that is the basis of existence for everything

When we shake hands historically,
We shake hands with the right hand
I think shaking hands with the right hand is a good way to express love
But some say freedom of will leads us to think about shaking hands with the right leg

As well as faith in the one God as in the Jews and Christians without Jesus and Muslims
We took it from our forebears and they are aware but this science can not easy be scientifically proven

May God bless you
amen

Do you give thanks to yourself for your good belief?

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm afraid you will need to elaborate a bit, to show me how the "circular reasoning" arises.

All I am saying - I think - is that nature behaves as if there are uncaused events and so our model of nature is that there ARE uncaused events.

If there is no evidence for a cause for such events, there is no reason to hypothesise that there is one (Ockham's Razor).

It seems to me you are - for some reason - taking it as axiomatic that everything MUST have a cause. But you cannot justify that assumption and it is not one shared by modern physics.

Science itself is deterministic, at its foundation.

Quantum wavefunction evolution is deterministic. There is always enough information to determine its evolution.

Quantum mechanics is modern physics, but modern physics is not solely QM.

 

[exchemist]

Science itself is deterministic, at its foundation.

Quantum wavefunction evolution is deterministic. There is always enough information to determine its evolution.

Quantum mechanics is modern physics, but modern physics is not solely QM.

Agreed, but QM is part of modern physics and it is, famously, not deterministic. Hence Einstein's famous complaint about it.

QM, which is all about probability distributions, is one of the two great pillars of physical chemistry. The other, you may be interested to know, is statistical thermodynamics. So that is not really deterministic either!

So your statement that "science is deterministic, at its foundation" is not correct. It was once, in the c.19th, but no more.

As for wavefunction "evolution", the fact that QM can say things about it does not detract from the inescapable fact that the thing itself is basically the square root of a probability density. So it is not deterministic.

 

[Sleeppy]

Agreed, but QM is part of modern physics and it is, famously, not deterministic. Hence Einstein's famous complaint about it.

QM, which is all about probability distributions, is one of the two great pillars of physical chemistry. The other, you may be interested to know, is statistical thermodynamics. So that is not really deterministic either!

So your statement that "science is deterministic, at its foundation" is not correct. It was once, in the c.19th, but no more.

As for wavefunction "evolution", the fact that QM can say things about it does not detract from the inescapable fact that the thing itself is basically the square root of a probability density. So it is not deterministic.

You're right. Partially deterministic.

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed, but QM is part of modern physics and it is, famously, not deterministic. Hence Einstein's famous complaint about it.

QM, which is all about probability distributions, is one of the two great pillars of physical chemistry. The other, you may be interested to know, is statistical thermodynamics. So that is not really deterministic either!

So your statement that "science is deterministic, at its foundation" is not correct. It was once, in the c.19th, but no more.

As for wavefunction "evolution", the fact that QM can say things about it does not detract from the inescapable fact that the thing itself is basically the square root of a probability density. So it is not deterministic.

I'd point out that classical statistical thermodynamics was based on the deterministic classical physics.

But, today, stat mech is based on the probabilistic quantum mechanics. That is required since otherwise a number of computed results (like specific heats) come out wrong.

 

[exchemist]

I'd point out that classical statistical thermodynamics was based on the deterministic classical physics.

But, today, stat mech is based on the probabilistic quantum mechanics. That is required since otherwise a number of computed results (like specific heats) come out wrong.

Yes fair enough. That just goes to show how hard it is for a chemist to set aside QM thinking!

In fact, the specific heat of gases is one of the classic results of Stat TD - but based, as you rightly remind me, on QM assumptions about energy level spacing in the various degrees of freedom and how they are populated: ε >> kT vs. ε << kT .

 

[exchemist]

You're right. Partially deterministic.

...which means not any more deterministic in total. In fact this was a rather profound change, in the early c.20th, in the way science approaches nature, philosophically speaking. Some people from that era, like Einstein, never really accepted the change of mindset.