OT Where's my royalties?

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> A simple example is an iron pendulum swinging between two magnets,
> available in shops as an aid to executive decision making (one magnet
> is labelled YES, the other NO). Completely deterministic, but
> unpredictable because you can't measure the starting position of the
> pendulum accurately enough, no matter how sophisticate your equipment.

That demonstrates what I already thought. The system is deterministic,
but due to our measuring abilities, we cannot predict the outcome. It is
not "Intrinsically indeterminate".

Jon

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Given full knowledge of a system, you can predict the behaviour of that
> system. The problem is obtaining full knowledge. "Intrinsically

Shazam! Seventy-five years of issues in quantum mechanics fixed by a
biochemist.

ian

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:07:03 +0100, Keith Willoughby
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Dunno why I'm asking this, mind. He won't see it.
>
> I did this time

Hurrah! All's well with the world again.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>
>>Keith, alone among posters, does not seem to appear at all in my
>>newsreader. Strange.
>
>
> Guy, Keith says:
>
> Very strange. We're both using the uni of Berlin server, so that can't
> be it. Do my posts appear in rec.bicycle.* ?
>
> Dunno why I'm asking this, mind. He won't see it.
>
> Tony ;-)

Ta!

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as His divine
messianic force to be -- a sort of policeman of the whole world." - MLK

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > Given full knowledge of a system, you can predict the behaviour of that
> > system. The problem is obtaining full knowledge. "Intrinsically
>
> Shazam! Seventy-five years of issues in quantum mechanics fixed by a
> biochemist.

There are two possibilities here:

1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
2) The universe is random.

Possibility 1 is the basic tenet of physics (And thus science).
Possibility 2 is the basic tenet of religion.

I'd hardly claim to have fixed anything, or to have proposed anything
out of the ordinary.

Jon

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
> There are two possibilities here:
>
> 1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
> 2) The universe is random.
>
> Possibility 1 is the basic tenet of physics (And thus science).
> Possibility 2 is the basic tenet of religion.

Er, no. Einstein said ``God does not play dice''. He was wrong.
Quantum effects _are_ random: that's why, for example, decay processes
make excellent RNGs.

ian

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jon Senior wrote:

> There are two possibilities here:
>
> 1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
> 2) The universe is random.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "finite laws"...

However, the actuality is perhaps more like a 1.5), The Universe follows
very hard laws but without knowing more than can *possibly*[1] be
available to you about the existing state of things you have no way of
predicting the outcome, so from a predictive point of view it is random
up to a point [Lord Copper].

Pete.

[1] and I don't mean you can't /practically/ find out because your
instruments aren't up to the job, I mean you cannot find out, period, as
finding out breaks those hard rules that will also define what happens
next. My understanding of quantum theory was pretty ropey even back
when I did it about 18 years ago, so ICBW here.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Graeme wrote:
>
>And the other one that has them in fits is -
>
>Two hydrogen atoms are sitting in a bar. One of them says, "I've lost an
>electron!" The other says, "Are you positive?".

ITYM "Are you certain?" "Yes, I'm positive."

 

[Graeme]

[email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> ITYM "Are you certain?" "Yes, I'm positive."
>

I really am on a roll today :-( You're right, I took the lazy route and cut
and paste it from elsewhere, no excuse though.

Graeme

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>There are two possibilities here:
>
>1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
>2) The universe is random.
>
>Possibility 1 is the basic tenet of physics (And thus science).
>Possibility 2 is the basic tenet of religion.

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli.

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Er, no. Einstein said ``God does not play dice''. He was wrong.
> Quantum effects _are_ random: that's why, for example, decay processes
> make excellent RNGs.

I presume that you have enlightened the scientific community of your
conclusion that the universe is non-deterministic? They might as well
all pack up and go home now.

Jon

 

[Paul Rudin]

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Er, no. Einstein said ``God does not play dice''. He was wrong.
> > Quantum effects _are_ random: that's why, for example, decay processes
> > make excellent RNGs.
>
> I presume that you have enlightened the scientific community of your
> conclusion that the universe is non-deterministic?

I think they know already ;-)

> They might as well all pack up and go home now.

Why?

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> Whingin' Pom wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:11:48 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> > () wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Keith, alone among posters, does not seem to appear at all in my
> >>>newsreader. Strange.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Maybe not seeing Keith is your Forte ;-)
> >
> >
> > I think you under-estimate the Gravity of the problem.
> >
>
> Whatever, it would appear that Keith's posts are XNews (or is that
> ex-Gnus) as far as Guy's concerned.

I agree. The Outlook seems dire.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Dave Larrington [email protected] opined the following...
> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>
> > So is the cat dead, or not?
>
> There /is/ no cat. Or spoon.

SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON MENACE!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
> >
> > From memory, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle stated that you could
> > only observe one aspect of a particle. Doing so would have an effect on
> > the other aspect (Aspects = position / momentum). He simply showed that
> > observation involved interaction. While you may not be able to know the
> > everything about a given particle, you can predict the behaviour of a
> > theoretical known particle.
>
>
> Its gone beyond that. The particle is in a superposition of all
> possible states. The act of observation forces it to assume one state
> but left to its own devices you cannot know which state it is in, just
> the statistical distribution between the states

But that is nothing but observation. We cannot observe the particle, so
we can only know the probable range of states it can occupy. In a
hypothetical situation (Outside of the Universe) where we knew
everything about the particle, could we predict its behaviour.

The thing about Shrodinger's wonderul thought experiment is that it was
devised to explain quantum superpositions to one of his students. The
problem was that it showed that something which was quite believable at
the micro level, was implausible at the macro level.

> > Chaos theory does not actually consitute "chaos". The high-order chaos
> > is a result of low-order logic.
> >
>
> The chaos is because the logically predicted outcome is very sensitive
> to the starting conditions so that your inability to measure those
> starting conditions e.g. Heisenberg and your inability to calculate the
> sequence of events with the accuracy of an infinite number of decimal
> places at each point in an infinitely sub divided time means that you
> cannot predict the outcome which changes every time you run your
> calculation.

This does not show that the logic is invalid, just that your information
is incomplete.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Roos Eisma [email protected] opined the following...
> To make it cycling related:

How dare you? ;-)

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Paul Rudin [email protected] opined the following...
> > I presume that you have enlightened the scientific community of your
> > conclusion that the universe is non-deterministic?
>
> I think they know already ;-)

A minority of physicists believe that the universe is non-deterministic.
The remainder are unconvinced. When quantum mechanics can provide
explanatory and predictive advantages over Newtonian physics in all
areas, then the argument will be (nearly) over.

> > They might as well all pack up and go home now.
>
> Why?

Because in a non-deterministic universe, there can be no hard and fast
laws of physics. This renders physics somewhat pointless. Thus, unless
they really enjoy the mind-bending maths, they might as well give up
now.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Peter Clinch [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
> > There are two possibilities here:
> >
> > 1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
> > 2) The universe is random.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "finite laws"...

To be honest neither am I. I think I was trying to get across the
concept of a set of laws which consitute everything. I believe its
usually known as "The Unified Theory".

> However, the actuality is perhaps more like a 1.5), The Universe follows
> very hard laws but without knowing more than can *possibly*[1] be
> available to you about the existing state of things you have no way of
> predicting the outcome, so from a predictive point of view it is random
> up to a point [Lord Copper].

Sorry. Deterministic NOT EQUALS Predictable. It can be deterministic
without it being possible to predict from within.

Jon

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Sorry. Deterministic NOT EQUALS Predictable. It can be deterministic
> without it being possible to predict from within.

I quite agree, but what I'm saying is that if you can't predict it then
however deterministic it is you don't know what will happen next, so it
is effectively random from your POV in the universe. Or sort of in
between the two states you gave as possibilities.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Jon Senior]

Peter Clinch [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
> > Sorry. Deterministic NOT EQUALS Predictable. It can be deterministic
> > without it being possible to predict from within.
>
> I quite agree, but what I'm saying is that if you can't predict it then
> however deterministic it is you don't know what will happen next, so it
> is effectively random from your POV in the universe. Or sort of in
> between the two states you gave as possibilities.

I see where your coming from. But I don't agree with the third state.
The two alternatives I offered are from the consideration of being
outside the universe.

This however is nitpicking. (Which I am exceptionally good at!).

The universe is inherently deterministic, but from within it, prediction
is impossible.

Jon