Jump to content
Science Forums

God doesn't play dice.....meaning


Kizzi

Recommended Posts

It is simple enough to disprove your main claim. Just watch SOMEONE ELSE go about their daily buisness and see how predictable their actions are.

Once again you prove my point, that free will operates primarily as a question of perception.

 

When I observe other people I rather notice their inconsistency, their unpredictability. How much easier it would be to trust, were they really so predictable.

 

Did you ever fall in love?

 

Habits are not so much about the operation of free will; habits are about avoiding the responsibility. While full blown free will is very hard work, and perilous, the life of a lap dog is relatively easy.

 

--- RH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
All the evidence points to him being a gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

 

It's interesting minutae when you look at the Latin.

 

The statement reads DEUS NOLI/NOLITE ALEA depending on whether 'does not' is used with or without infinity.

 

It could be completed as MODO/POSSE SCIRE MISCERE (but can throw) depending on whether 'but' is used with or without infinity.

 

The uncertainty arises between infinity, that we cannot measure, and the finite no infinity, that we can measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As mentioned, Einstein was challenging Bohr and the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.

 

To a great extent, Einstein did champion quantum theory and accepted the prinicple of indeterminacy. What he disputed was the idea that reality itself does not exist. The Copenhagen view had reduced the universe to a collection of probabilties relative to observers. It was not simply that we could not be certain of an unobserved outcome. It was claimed that any unobserved outcome had no definite existence. Einstein maintained to Bohr that the unverse really is out there and God does not play dice when we're not looking.

 

It is interesting to speculate whether Einstein - if he had lived - might have endorsed the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory to win his argument with Bohr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to look at this was that Einstein believed that rational order was how the universe was organized, even though all the answers were not yet brought to light. But at the same time the practical utility of Quantum physics and the theory of indeterminancy was working so well that it was creating the illusion that rational order did not exist. In other words, a correlation is a mathematical model and does not have to reflect reality to be extemely useful.

 

Let me give an example. Before we knew about cells, it was thought that life could spontaneously appear. People saw maggots appear out of rotten meat or blooms of agae could appear overnight. Without microscopes they began to assume a theory of the spontaneous generation of life. If one assumed this theory to be true, one could set up a good correlation between certain types of meat, its age and the appearance of life. To some, the practical ability to predict the appearance of life with statistics would make them believe spontaneous generation was reality.

 

With the invention of the microscope, such a correlation was no longer needed because their was now a more logical explanation. But up to that point, the system would have gotten brainwashed by the utility of the correlation and anyone suggesting logic was considered suspect. Most failed to realize that a correaltion does not have to reflect reality to be useful. It can start with erronoeus assumptions, like the spontaneous appearance of life, and still work.

 

Einstein intuitively saw the universe ultimeately being defined in a logical way at a time when a very powerful set of empirical correlations in coming in vogue. The crap shoot approach worked so well it was assumed to reflect reality. When quantum physics was not able to include gravity, this should have been a hint, but the bias of tradition runs deep. In other words, the crap shoot approach is very useful when rational understanding is limited. But it can also undermine reason because it is so useful; until it hits a wall, then logic reappears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did make one correct statement: there is a basic antagonism between a-theistic science and religion (Christianity). This antagonism is based, not on the faith vs. fact issue, but on the mutually exclusive starting points, i.e., man and his environment are either created or uncreated. The scientist who asks for evidence/proof of God has already assumed the position that he is uncreated.

 

I don't think your assumption is true.

Many, probably most, scientists believe in a god.

Science is not the enemy of spiritualism. In fact it opens our eyes to the wonder and complexity of life.

 

Whatever way you look at it the universe was created

(As Terry Prattchett humorously puts it 'At first there was nothing, and then it exploded').

Scientists may not agree with the Biblical-literal-seven-day-scenario. They may believe that god created the world in a more wondrous and complex way than we can imagine and took her time about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was referring to one of the consequences of the interpretation of Quantum Physics commonly called the Copenhagen Interpretation (see [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

This belief, a common one among scientists and mathematicians, is important to know was shared by Einstein if you wish to understand quotes of his like “"God does not play dice". What he actually meant was “the universe is not random, but deterministic”.

 

As usual CraigD another great post

(How come I can't keep giving you reputation? I thought moderators were exempt from unlimited praise)

Question:

How does all this fit with Chaos Theory?

(I was interested to learn that about half of the physicists in the world, experts in chaos theory, work for stockbrokers!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again you prove my point, that free will operates primarily as a question of perception.

 

When I observe other people I rather notice their inconsistency, their unpredictability. How much easier it would be to trust, were they really so predictable.

 

Did you ever fall in love?

 

Habits are not so much about the operation of free will; habits are about avoiding the responsibility. While full blown free will is very hard work, and perilous, the life of a lap dog is relatively easy.

 

--- RH.

 

I trust people to do what they think benefits them or at the very least, what I know adheres to my model of the human mind that is reinforced everytime I see anyone do anything.

 

A person in Nazi Germany, with all the forms of brainwashing and social pressure in place, still might choose to rebel against the nazi's out of belief that it is the right thing to do. Looking at his past I could probably see why he would be likely to rebel while others were not.

 

On the other hand, such a german living during WW2 would not say... drive to china and dance like a monkey.

 

@ Hydrogen bond.. great post, I agree 100%. Sometimes this is referred to as the plurality problem of coherentism, where coherentism is the belief that a belief set's value depends on how few logical contraidcitions occur given every other piece of it and all empyrically gathered information.

 

SOme believe coherentism (With the added attribute that the more information a coherent belief set contains the better) is how human beings naturally value belief sets, but it has been claimed that for any given set of empyrical data there are infinite potential belief sets that could be coherent with the data. The only way to reduce the number of belief sets is to gain more information thus providing more constraints.

 

Until we gathered evidence of what we now call cells, a theory of something similar to cells as well as spontaneous generation of life were both belief sets that were coherent with all gathered information of the time. Gathering more information provided more constraints that eliminated the spontaneous generation theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... drive to china and dance like a monkey.

 

SOme believe coherentism (With the added attribute that the more information a coherent belief set contains the better) is how human beings naturally value belief sets, but it has been claimed that for any given set of empyrical data there are infinite potential belief sets that could be coherent with the data. The only way to reduce the number of belief sets is to gain more information thus providing more constraints.

 

Until we gathered evidence of what we now call cells, a theory of something similar to cells as well as spontaneous generation of life were both belief sets that were coherent with all gathered information of the time. Gathering more information provided more constraints that eliminated the spontaneous generation theory.

Just to throw a Chinese-Monkey-Spanner into the works

Freud had a word (which I have forgotten) for the phenomenon he found of people keeping two logically inconsistent and contradictory ideas in their little brains at once.

From my short time on the planet it seems a very easily observable phenomenon - especially with politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a risk of being labeled a heretic I am going to express my beliefs concerning God, dice, and the universe rather than try to guess Einstein's beliefs. He was after all just a man, same as Jesus.

We all have free will. We are all living members of a Universe, one of an infinite number of 'parallel' universes. God doesn't play dice with 'the' universe, he doen't interfere at all. Probability determines which universe each of our probable selves inhabits from moment to moment. Nothing is certain, anything is possible, some things are more likely than others, and we all must learn to live with the implied uncertainty in the 'infiverse.' And before you all begin labeling me and slinging mud, let me quote the GREAT prophet Popeye:

"I am what I am, and thats all I am." Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all have free will. We are all living members of a Universe, one of an infinite number of 'parallel' universes. God doesn't play dice with 'the' universe, he doen't interfere at all. Probability determines which universe each of our probable selves inhabits from moment to moment. Nothing is certain, anything is possible, some things are more likely than others, and we all must learn to live with the implied uncertainty in the 'infiverse.'

 

Your description of a multiverse is perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Indeed the 'many worlds view' dominates contemporary quantum physics.

 

However, I would also have to say that it is a deterministic model of reality - perhaps the most deterministic model of them all. In a multiverse where time is constantly splitting and everything that can happen does happen, free will becomes hard to sustain, perhaps even logically impossible. You can rescue free will only by re-defining it as chance. This would allow all possible actions to be taken and apparent choices to be made, but it would not allow you to claim ultimate responsibility for what you appear to be choosing.

 

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what sense do you mean that the many worlds view "dominates contemporary quantum physics"?

 

:beer:

 

The many worlds view started with Everett in the 50s. It remained a minority interpretation in the decades that followed. By the late 1990s this had changed.

 

According to a recent poll, 58% of leading quantum theorists consider the multiverse the most appropriate model to work with. Among them is Stephen Hawking.

 

Of course, this does not prove that the many worlds view is correct. It must be argued on it's own merits, whether it happens to be the majority view or not.

 

Nevertheless, it does go some way to reconcile the notion of a fixed space-time with the Uncertainty Principle. Perhaps this was the missing link when Einstein challenged quantum theory with his famous "God does not play dice" argument.

 

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't know about Hawking, but I haven't found such a great number of physicists taking it so seriously.

 

I must assume that you're not among those who do!

 

Although the multiverse is no longer a fringe concept, perhaps there is some ambiguity between those who find it appropriate as a mathematical model and those who really endorse it as a working theory.

 

Admittedly, the many worlds view hasn't quite acheived the status of propositions such as "the Earth orbits the Sun, which is only one of millions". Nevertheless, it's getting there. For some, the idea has become so familiar that it doesn't seem any more incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has certainly become a quite popular idea, perhaps since Doug discussed it in his "Metamagical Themas" (Gee, :doh: just look what he's gone an' done!), but I really think that most of those who take it seriously are science buffs and not those with sound background.

 

Even concerning only "finding it appropriate as a mathematical model" I don't see how it would work for probability distributions. Suppose a system has an observable represented by the self-adjoint operator A with eigenvalues [math]\norm x_i[/math] and is in a state (disregarding degeneracy):

 

[math]\sum\alpha_i \mid x_i \gt[/math]

 

with the [math]\norm\alpha_i[/math] differing widely in modulus, how do we get the effect of probabilities? It is, after all, the main thing that quantum formalism is meant to predict. How to relate the certain fact that "some of the outcomes are more likely than others" with the notion that "they all occur, each in a different ramification"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

A six month delay in giving a simple answer to this. :confused:

 

How to relate the certain fact that "some of the outcomes are more likely than others" with the notion that "they all occur, each in a different ramification"?

 

There is no contradiction between probability distribution and the multiverse. For those who do prefer it as a model, the multiverse is considered a literal and realistic expression of quantum probabilities and therefore more useful than the single universe Copenhagen model.

 

Both refer to the same 'eigenvalues' in quantum events with possible outcomes. The difference in interpretation can be summarised thus:

 

While quantum events remain unmeasured, the Copenhagen view regards them as undetermined. When measured, only one of the possible series of outcomes will be collapsed into existence. A given probability can be applied to a particular series of outcomes.

 

The many worlds view says that the existence of all possible outcomes is not observer dependent. When measured, each will occur in its own ramification with certainty. A given probabilty describes the proportion of ramifications in which a particular series of outcomes occurs.

 

So for example, in terms of a single universe, if you said events A and B both have a 1/2 probability, translated for the multiverse you would say that for every universe where A occurs, there is another where B occurs.

 

As far as probability distributions go, both models can make the same predictions.

 

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...