Largely? So… you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of “largely deterministically”.
Sure. I’m laffing my arse off.
Nah. Can’t be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have a cookie.
I’m of the opinion that everything is deterministic, and remain unconvinced of QI, although I’m open to evidence of it (as opposed to mathematical models that subsume it). Our inability to predict particle behaviour at the quantum level doesn’t imply that it’s fundamentally unpredictable.
Just be clear on this. You are of the opinion the determinism is incompatible with dualism.
If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define “physical structure” and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand “physical structure”.
I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.
Yes. That’s because quantum indeterminacy is scale-dependent. More exactly, it’s state- and (mass-)energy/time dependent. As a result, we conjecture virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and not, say, actual fully-formed ignoramuses who somehow manage to persist through space and time far beyond the limits set by the Uncertainty Principle… :
I suggest having a good look at Bell’s Theorem. The important points to note are (a) that it applies to all QM models independent of particular mathematical formulations (just as Gödel incompleteness applies to all axiomatic formal systems above a certain minimal complexity); (b) that it has been experimentally validated (though some challenges remain), and (c) that there’s therefore good reason to believe that indeterminacy can only be removed by introducing one or more global variables into QM systems. Some hitherto unknown communicative aspect of spacetime could be the global variable. Or, as some mystically-minded start-gun-jumping thinkers would have it, maybe it’s a (deistic) god… :
'Luthon64
Thanks. So what do you have to say about the largely, fully or minimally deterministic or indterministic nature of particle decay and radioactive decay and would you compare those two? I am not sure in which category you would put it. Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does… tada "sh|t happens?
And what are your opinions on Bohmian mechanics?
It depends on how many decay-prone particles one is considering. One cannot predict when, or even if, any one particular particle will decay. Nor is there any known force or influence that one can subject it to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event. On the other hand, if one considers a large collection of similar decay-prone particles, there are simple statistical laws that govern the collection, the principal parameter of which is the so-called half-life. This quantity tells us how long it takes for half the particles in the sample to decay, but not which ones they are. These laws become more and more certain as the number of particles in the sample increases, and, conversely, less and less certain as their number diminishes. When the sample is down to a few tens of particles, the statistical half-life formulation is practically unusable and unreliable. The situation is somewhat akin to tossing a fair coin: the more flips one does, the closer the relative heads-to-tails ratio will approach 50:50, but you can’t predict the outcome of any one specific toss with any certainty — just as you cannot predict with any certainty the specifics of how your words are going to get twisted by some predatory, axe-grinding ignoramus who can’t help being an unpleasant creep, as per certain ShoutBox entries…
De Broglie-Bohm theory doesn’t have the explanatory range or elegance of quantum field theory (or gauge field theories, generally). Several and ongoing attempts to extend it thus have been unsuccessful.
'Luthon64
Nah. Can’t be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have another cookie.
Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have another cookie.
LMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D
Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does… tada "sh|t happens?
Win what? Nobody wins when one claims a loss or victory out of ignorance. So I am going to apply a bit of new atheist logic here if you don’t mind:
There is no evidence that you are able to define and understand the above mentioned concepts, therefore there no need to believe you are knowledgable about them.
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?
Oh, Oh, is that me? >:D
Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don’t be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}} ;D ;D ;D
Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn’t want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.
Psssst, in case you haven’t noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}
LMAO
I’m generally a very loveable person too. I’ll add my lovies and huggies to this thread.
{{{{{*****}}}}}}}
Greaaat, now it is my fault if people have bad sides and showing it. Where is the love man, think…
think...
Not today, it’s Friday…tralalalalalala
I’m in the mood for spreading love, Telly old bean… ;D
Here, have another biscuit and lots more hugs
XOXOXOXOXOXOX
Sure, chief. I’m out of Romany Creams, but I’m sure I can dig up a stale Marie for you?
As far as we know, individual decay events, whether particle or radioactive, are completely spontaneous and unpredictable. As mentioned before, “{there is no} known force or influence that one can subject {a decay-prone particle} to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.” That means we lack understanding of a cause for such events, if there even is one. Indeed, to the best of our present knowledge, decay has no cause and is truly random. Nonetheless, the degree of decay proneness of matter can be characterised in terms of its half-life, which quantity can be viewed as an inverse measure of its propensity for decay: the shorter the half-life, the more “eager” a particle is to decay, i.e. the more probable it is to decay within a given period of time.
While generally unwelcome in science, the “coprophanetetical hypothesis” is at present what best accounts for individual decay events (and certain other subatomic phenomena).
'Luthon64