Author: José Carlos
Date: 18:09:20 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 19:52:19, Sune Fischer wrote: >On August 06, 2002 at 19:15:05, José Carlos wrote: > >>On August 06, 2002 at 18:34:12, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On August 06, 2002 at 17:19:38, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On August 06, 2002 at 15:15:08, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>>> >>>>>PS: Anyway, that is not so true because it is impossible to know all the >>>>>variables without altered them. >>>> >>>>He was speaking from a purely theoretical point of view of course, since it's >>>>impossible to measure every possible variable, and even if it were, it would >>>>alter some of them as you said. However, that doesn't make it false in theory. >>>> >>>>Russell >>> >>>Yes it does actually. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is a fundamental law, >>>quantum theory doesn't work without it. >>>To assume you could know all variables with infinite precision would be an >>>invalid assumption, _even_ as a thought experiment. >>> >>>So in deep down nothing is determanistic, but on our scale the world acts >>>differently and we can for the most part completely forget about this principle. >>>It plays no role in the flipping of a coin, for instance. >>> >>>-S. >> >> ...If you accept quantum mechanics as "totally correct". Well, I don't, but >>that's way off topic. The only absolute truth we can know is that we can't know >>any absolute truth... > >And I don't believe in the Moon, prove to me it exists! :) It doesn't, just american propaganda... :) >I'm terribly sorry, but those kind of remarks just bug the h*ll out of me. > >Can you give any good reason why you don't accept it? > >The theory has worked wonders for 70 years, passed all test, pridicted endless >amounts of results (it has pridicted new particles, explained alpa and >beta-radiation etc etc...), it's been one long success story from the very >beginning, it's possibly the greatest achievement of the human race in the 20th >century. General Relativity is more impressing to me. Hard to believe we live in a non euclidean space... >...but you don't believe it! > >-S. Don't get me wrong, I don't say it's bad. I'm not qualified to make such statement. I only say I don't believe what the theory relies on, specially non-determinism. There's no way to prove a theory, either right or wrong. A theory (in physics) is just a mathematical model of the world. Using maths, we guess what's the reason for events and predict how nature will behave. A theory is as good as it's predictions are. So quantum mechanics is a good theory, no doubt. But: a) it's incomplete (it fails about gravitation); b) it needs strange (anti-natural) statements (measure problem, non locality); c) doesn't make perfect predictions (you can't predict the behaviour of a single particle); d) it's just another model, we'll never know how the "real" (if such a thing exists) structure of the universe is. Non determinism is, IMO, a contradiction itself. If the same cause doesn't always yield the same effect (causality principle violation) any further reasoning is void. Note that every reasoning _needs_ the causality principle to make sense. Reasoning is going from a premise to a conclusion using inference rules. Same premises -> same conclusions, A is true _because_ B is false, etc... So non determinism as an inherent property of the universe is not acceptable for me, unless we immediately conclude we can't conclude anything, not even this conclusion! This said, I have much respect for quantum theory and the brilliant scientists who developed it (Heisemberg, Schroedinger, Bohr, Dirac, Pauli, De Broglie, Fermi, ... even Planck and Einstein contributed!). But I still believe we are nothing but deterministic machines :( José C.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.