Demystifying Determinism

[pood]

And, if we didn't take it for granted, gravity might be called "spooky action at a distance".

Actually, that fery idea freaked out Newton, who although he described how gravity works, confessed himself baffled as to what this mysterious force was that could act, well, spookily at a distance. Although of course he did not use that term, which Einstein later used in a different context.
’
Einstein showed that gravity was a fictitious force, and that gravitational attraction is explained by bodies moving in curved spacetime. The real “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics is nothing like gravity, but even so you can’t use spooky action at a distance to send messages faster than c.

 

[Jarhyn]

Given it takes some mastery of language and associated equipment to form coherent thoughts - yes coherent - one doesn't expect to have to explain how a baby categorizes what it sees, hears, smells, tastes, orients or feels early on. But explaining how one does is at the root of conscious perception. Talk about "spooky action at a distance ... " puleez.

No. I don't presume we are at the stone in Athens visualizing caves. That was Plato. It wasn't convenient for him to get into such trivia. He had propositions to push.

Sounds familiar ....

And yet here you are sitting in that very cave Plato described.

It's up to you to crawl out of it.

 

[fromderinside]

Given it takes some mastery of language and associated equipment to form coherent thoughts - yes coherent - one doesn't expect to have to explain how a baby categorizes what it sees, hears, smells, tastes, orients or feels early on. But explaining how one does is at the root of conscious perception. Talk about "spooky action at a distance ... " puleez.

No. I don't presume we are at the stone in Athens visualizing caves. That was Plato. It wasn't convenient for him to get into such trivia. He had propositions to push.

Sounds familiar ....

And yet here you are sitting in that very cave Plato described.

It's up to you to crawl out of it.

Are you saying lack of language is the cave? If so you missed the notion of experiment. Not something Plato thought much about. Probably why he proposed the cave analogy.

I'd expect something more coherent from one who presumes it.

 

[fromderinside]

And math models are ... ... an experiment in any way shape or form. They can lead to them. That is true enough.

I presume you meant "...not...".

So can propositions or even one's passing of gas.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

And, if we didn't take it for granted, gravity might be called "spooky action at a distance".

Actually, that fery idea freaked out Newton, who although he described how gravity works, confessed himself baffled as to what this mysterious force was that could act, well, spookily at a distance. Although of course he did not use that term, which Einstein later used in a different context.
’
Einstein showed that gravity was a fictitious force, and that gravitational attraction is explained by bodies moving in curved spacetime. The real “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics is nothing like gravity, but even so you can’t use spooky action at a distance to send messages faster than c.

I don't go along with the notion of curved spacetime. It leaves us with the question: "What causes spacetime to curve?", and what answer do we have other than some "force"?

 

[Jarhyn]

Given it takes some mastery of language and associated equipment to form coherent thoughts - yes coherent - one doesn't expect to have to explain how a baby categorizes what it sees, hears, smells, tastes, orients or feels early on. But explaining how one does is at the root of conscious perception. Talk about "spooky action at a distance ... " puleez.

No. I don't presume we are at the stone in Athens visualizing caves. That was Plato. It wasn't convenient for him to get into such trivia. He had propositions to push.

Sounds familiar ....

And yet here you are sitting in that very cave Plato described.

It's up to you to crawl out of it.

Are you saying lack of language is the cave? If so you missed the notion of experiment. Not something Plato thought much about. Probably why he proposed the cave analogy.

I'd expect something more coherent from one who presumes it.

The point of the cave is that doubting with the great gnashing of teeth whether anything you think and feel is real is not the point, not of any of this.

Your wailing and gnashing of teeth at the inability to trust your own senses that there is anything real out there prevents you from finding the truth about it.

"Freedom" and "possibility" are just objects of math, "equality" and "variable"

Possibility is seeing whether F(X) calculates a defined result.

Freedom is seeing whether F(X) has equality with F(real_state).

 

[SIB]

And, if we didn't take it for granted, gravity might be called "spooky action at a distance".

Actually, that fery idea freaked out Newton, who although he described how gravity works, confessed himself baffled as to what this mysterious force was that could act, well, spookily at a distance. Although of course he did not use that term, which Einstein later used in a different context.
’
Einstein showed that gravity was a fictitious force, and that gravitational attraction is explained by bodies moving in curved spacetime. The real “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics is nothing like gravity, but even so you can’t use spooky action at a distance to send messages faster than c.

He showed it could be fictious. Kind of like centripetal force, its just a way of describing the direction of the force for design or general unpacking of what is happing but isn't really the force it itself.

 

[SIB]

And math models are ... ... an experiment in any way shape or form. They can lead to them. That is true enough.

I presume you meant "...not...".

So can propositions or even one's passing of gas.

yes ... not ... thanks.

and yes ... often people are just living as people do. Often an event experienced can trigger a thought about how to adjust or construct an experiment. A good release of pressure in the gut can spark a though of "What if ... "

 

[bilby]

And, if we didn't take it for granted, gravity might be called "spooky action at a distance".

Actually, that fery idea freaked out Newton, who although he described how gravity works, confessed himself baffled as to what this mysterious force was that could act, well, spookily at a distance. Although of course he did not use that term, which Einstein later used in a different context.
’
Einstein showed that gravity was a fictitious force, and that gravitational attraction is explained by bodies moving in curved spacetime. The real “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics is nothing like gravity, but even so you can’t use spooky action at a distance to send messages faster than c.

I don't go along with the notion of curved spacetime. It leaves us with the question: "What causes spacetime to curve?", and what answer do we have other than some "force"?

Mass causes spacetime to curve - or at least, to behave mathematically as though it were curved.

Modelling spacetime as a multidimensional stack of fields, in which particles represent probability maxima in a given field, is mind-blowingly counterintuitive, but gives astonishingly accurate predictions that cannot be matched by any other approach, so for non-gravitational questions, Quantum Field Theory is the only game in town, despite being utterly horrifying philosophically. In such a model, all forces are due to the exchange of gauge bosons with integer spin, with those bosons being probability maxima that propagate in their respective fields at a rate of c.

As we have detected these bosons for three of the four known fundamental forces (photons, W-bosons, and gluons, for the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces respectively), it seems reasonable to hypothesise that the remaining force - gravity - has a similar mechanism.

The hypothetical mass of the graviton is somewhere between minuscule and zero, and they only interact in proportion to mass, so detecting them is a major undertaking - if they exist, you would need a detector the size of a very large planet, in close orbit around a supermassive object (a neutron star or a black hole), to stand a serious chance of seeing one, and even then you would need to run the detector for years, maybe decades.

The upper limit of their hypothetical rest-mass is set by our observation of the distances over which gravity operates, and the observation that it propagates as close to c as we can measure - this limit was theorised in the 1970s to be around 10⁻²⁹eV, and has since been refined to 6x10^-32eV - and that’s the absolute upper limit of the range of possible masses for this particle.

It’s possible that the unexplained super large scale phenomena provisionally tagged as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ are due to even weaker, and even longer range, forces. However as these are only detectable at galactic scales, their implied bosons are going to be even harder to pin down than the graviton.

The problem is that gravity is utterly pathetic. The electromagnetic force generated by a tiny fridge magnet is easily able to overwhelm the gravity generated by an entire planet; The gravity generated by sub-planetary masses is within a bee’s dick of fuck all, making it a total bastard to even detect in a lab, much less work with to any degree of precision. We only notice gravity at all because it acts at astonishingly long ranges - you don’t need to move that fridge magnet far from the fridge door, for the gravity of the Earth (centred some 6,400km away) to exceed the electromagnetic force from a steel substrate a mere few cm away.

TL; DR - Einstein was probably wrong, for a given value of ‘wrong’, which is to say, he improved on Newton, who was also wrong, and both men produced models of reality that are both easy to work with, and extremely accurate at the scales which were relevant to their observations.

Everything in physics is wrong; The trick is to be wrong to a sufficiently tiny degree as to not get caught out. So far, only Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity achieve this level of non-disagreement with observed reality. The kicker being that they disagree with each other. One or both must therefore be wrong. Probably both, based on the history of science; But it’s going to take some seriously impressive observations to demonstrate situations where errors in either can be confirmed and measured.

Still TL; Still DR - Einstein was wrong, but not as wrong as pretty much everyone else in the history of science, so give the man a break.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Mass causes spacetime to curve - or at least, to behave mathematically as though it were curved.

Well, if it helps Albert with his math, then good for him. But neither space nor time have any shape to them. Space is just the distance between two objects and Time is just the distance between two events. Objects, on the other hand, have shape and mass. And the masses of objects are attracted to each other. That's how we get planetary orbits. And also how we get Black Holes.

The hypothetical mass of the graviton is somewhere between minuscule and zero, and they only interact in proportion to mass, so detecting them is a major undertaking - if they exist, you would need a detector the size of a very large planet, in close orbit around a supermassive object (a neutron star or a black hole), to stand a serious chance of seeing one, and even then you would need to run the detector for years, maybe decades.

So, how can tossing a baseball between the pitcher and first baseman pull the pitcher and the first baseman closer together? The flow of particles between two objects would not draw them closer together.

On the other hand, the electromagnetic force between two objects can be reduced by the lightning bolt between them that neutralizes their charges.

But I don't think I can believe in gravitons.

It’s possible that the unexplained super large scale phenomena provisionally tagged as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ are due to even weaker, and even longer range, forces. However as these are only detectable at galactic scales, their implied bosons are going to be even harder to pin down than the graviton.

About that. I'm a fan of the Big Bounce cosmology. Would I be wrong to suggest that the expanding universe is not really expanding at this point, but is instead collapsing at an ever increasing speed, such that objects nearer the center, which we appear to be moving away from, are actually moving away from us as we both are pulled to the center at ever increasing speeds? (That gravity thing).

TL; DR - Einstein was probably wrong, for a given value of ‘wrong’, which is to say, he improved on Newton, who was also wrong, and both men produced models of reality that are both easy to work with, and extremely accurate at the scales which were relevant to their observations.

Everything in physics is wrong; The trick is to be wrong to a sufficiently tiny degree as to not get caught out. So far, only Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity achieve this level of non-disagreement with observed reality. The kicker being that they disagree with each other. One or both must therefore be wrong. Probably both, based on the history of science; But it’s going to take some seriously impressive observations to demonstrate situations where errors in either can be confirmed and measured.

Still TL; Still DR - Einstein was wrong, but not as wrong as pretty much everyone else in the history of science, so give the man a break.

Sounds like you need a mathematical compatibilist!

 

[bilby]

But neither space nor time have any shape to them. Space is just the distance between two objects and Time is just the distance between two events. Objects, on the other hand, have shape and mass. And the masses of objects are attracted to each other. That's how we get planetary orbits. And also how we get Black Holes.

Time (and distance) are unidimensional, and so have no shape (sincere apologies to topologists for this unimaginably crude and completely inaccurate summary of their highly complex topic).

Spacetime has shape, because it has multiple dimensions. Objects, in the crudest mechanical system, have shape because they are three dimensional; a plan of a (3d) sphere is a (2d) circle, and an edge-on view of a circle is a (1d) line. Two or more orthogonal dimensions imply a shape.

Spacetime has at least four dimensions, so it very certainly does have a shape.

You might as well argue that a parabola cannot have a shape, because both the x axis and the y axis are straight lines.

Even given one dimensional space, spacetime has a shape.

 

[bilby]

So, how can tossing a baseball between the pitcher and first baseman pull the pitcher and the first baseman closer together?

Through the transfer of momentum.

 

[bilby]

Would I be wrong to suggest that the expanding universe is not really expanding at this point, but is instead collapsing at an ever increasing speed, such that objects nearer the center, which we appear to be moving away from, are actually moving away from us as we both are pulled to the center at ever increasing speeds?

Yes, you would almost certainly be wrong to suggest that.

 

[SIB]

Keep in mind gents ... "time" as an actual dimension (like x-y-z) may just be a math trick. Like the centripetal force.

State changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call time. Like the sun appearing every morning is a day. We could call it a second or just call it dt.

Also, QM is the only model that hasn't failed in making any prediction. And the funny thing is we (well they) don't even know the actual mechanisms.

 

[SIB]

It’s possible that the unexplained super large scale phenomena provisionally tagged as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ are due to even weaker, and even longer range, forces. However as these are only detectable at galactic scales, their implied bosons are going to be even harder to pin down than the graviton.

About that. I'm a fan of the Big Bounce cosmology. Would I be wrong to suggest that the expanding universe is not really expanding at this point, but is instead collapsing at an ever increasing speed, such that objects nearer the center, which we appear to be moving away from, are actually moving away from us as we both are pulled to the center at ever increasing speeds? (That gravity thing)

I snipped a bunch for space ... sorry if I changed any any meaning.

To the bolded ... I guess it could be. But the problem is red shifting. If it was collapsing it would be blue shifting.

The interesting thing to me is the "strands" in the web. Think of them like fingers. Imagine two fingers "buddied up" because you broke one. The outside of the fingers would be accelerating towards the bone of each respective finger. If you were at the "outside" of one finger everything would be accelerating away from you. Now image a bunch of fingers. To any one point most the the "stuff" would look like it is moving away. But the fingers could be closing.

We would just need some actual observational data to prove that you deserve the Nobel Price. But you have my vote.

 

[bilby]

Keep in mind gents ... "time" as an actual dimension (like x-y-z) may just be a math trick. Like the centripetal force.

The centripetal force is as real as any other force.

As is it's oft-maligned reaction, the centrifugal force.

State changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call time. Like the sun appearing every morning is a day. We could call it a second or just call it dt.

Location changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call motion. Time and motion are equally real phenomena.

Also, QM is the only model that hasn't failed in making any prediction. And the funny thing is we (well they) don't even know the actual mechanisms.

Nobody has ever known the actual mechanisms for anything, so that's hardly surprising.

Science doesn't do mechanisms; It does predictions. And as you correctly point out, QM does them very well indeed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Keep in mind gents ... "time" as an actual dimension (like x-y-z) may just be a math trick. Like the centripetal force.

The centripetal force is as real as any other force.

As is it's oft-maligned reaction, the centrifugal force.

View attachment 39577

State changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call time. Like the sun appearing every morning is a day. We could call it a second or just call it dt.

Location changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call motion. Time and motion are equally real phenomena.

Also, QM is the only model that hasn't failed in making any prediction. And the funny thing is we (well they) don't even know the actual mechanisms.

Nobody has ever known the actual mechanisms for anything, so that's hardly surprising.

Science doesn't do mechanisms; It does predictions. And as you correctly point out, QM does them very well indeed.

Well, I'm obviously in way over my head here. My only Physics teacher was TV's Mr. Wizard.

 

[SIB]

Keep in mind gents ... "time" as an actual dimension (like x-y-z) may just be a math trick. Like the centripetal force.

The centripetal force is as real as any other force.

As is it's oft-maligned reaction, the centrifugal force.

View attachment 39577

State changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call time. Like the sun appearing every morning is a day. We could call it a second or just call it dt.

Location changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call motion. Time and motion are equally real phenomena.

Also, QM is the only model that hasn't failed in making any prediction. And the funny thing is we (well they) don't even know the actual mechanisms.

Nobody has ever known the actual mechanisms for anything, so that's hardly surprising.

Science doesn't do mechanisms; It does predictions. And as you correctly point out, QM does them very well indeed.

You have a couple of flawed statements in here. The centripetal force is not a "real force", its is a result of other "real forces". Like frictional force of a race car going around a bend. They call the net force toward the center the centripetal force. But the "real force" is the contact surface. Or the Earth going around the sun. We use net force and call it centripetal, but the "real force" is gravity". And, as stated before, they don't know what gravity is.

Motion is a location change over time, that is true. the velocity is based on time and time is a set of state changes that we compare the motion to. so we say that object moved that distance in five state changes of that mechanical device. Versus, that other object went twice as far as the first in the same five state changes. The math works out, and as you pointed out, it makes predictions so we can go with it.

science doesn't do mechanisms ... wow. Mechanism are exactly what they are actually looking for. You are correct, its not mandatory. I would understood if you said they are not only worried about mechanisms if they can make predictions. Then I would agree with ya 100%,

 

[Jarhyn]

Keep in mind gents ... "time" as an actual dimension (like x-y-z) may just be a math trick. Like the centripetal force.

The centripetal force is as real as any other force.

As is it's oft-maligned reaction, the centrifugal force.

View attachment 39577

State changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call time. Like the sun appearing every morning is a day. We could call it a second or just call it dt.

Location changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call motion. Time and motion are equally real phenomena.

Also, QM is the only model that hasn't failed in making any prediction. And the funny thing is we (well they) don't even know the actual mechanisms.

Nobody has ever known the actual mechanisms for anything, so that's hardly surprising.

Science doesn't do mechanisms; It does predictions. And as you correctly point out, QM does them very well indeed.

science doesn't do mechanisms ... wow.

I would understood if you said they are not only worried about mechanisms if they can make predictions. Then I would agree with ya 100%,

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

 

[SIB]

Keep in mind gents ... "time" as an actual dimension (like x-y-z) may just be a math trick. Like the centripetal force.

The centripetal force is as real as any other force.

As is it's oft-maligned reaction, the centrifugal force.

View attachment 39577

State changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call time. Like the sun appearing every morning is a day. We could call it a second or just call it dt.

Location changes that happen at some repeating interval is what we call motion. Time and motion are equally real phenomena.

Also, QM is the only model that hasn't failed in making any prediction. And the funny thing is we (well they) don't even know the actual mechanisms.

Nobody has ever known the actual mechanisms for anything, so that's hardly surprising.

Science doesn't do mechanisms; It does predictions. And as you correctly point out, QM does them very well indeed.

science doesn't do mechanisms ... wow.

I would understood if you said they are not only worried about mechanisms if they can make predictions. Then I would agree with ya 100%,

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

To me, we have to keep in mind the physical world vs the math world. Math is the theory side of things. Like art. If I asked you to draw as many types of houses as you can. The physical world is like we have to actually build a usable house. science records the observations. Then asks the math department if their they have anything that matches what they see. Over simplified, but thats the gist. I took some liberty in the wording as to not offend the math guys.

Science doesn't do mechanism for quantum mechanics because they can't "see" that far "in" yet. They do not, not look (is that legal) for the mechanism because its "isolated math system". The isolated math works, so we can use it for now. But they want to know why it works that way.

The math doesn't determine the mechanism. The mechanism determines the math. They don't know why it works, but it does. Space-time may not be fundamental, And they don't even know what space-time is made of.

And honest scientist knows that math is another platform to describe what is going on. Like art and writing. And honest math person knows that math is just another way of expressing what we experience around us. And just like words, it could be gibberish.