[InfoJunkie4Life]

Ebaines you are poorly mistaken. I make no means to say that things can be precisely measured. I was trying to point out the differing points of view, the physical universe as many scientists see it, and also the spiritual universe as a good number of other people see it. With the machinist point of view, I make no argument saying that we are capable of measuring the universe or calculating its actions.

I simply wish to point out that in the view of science we will find that everything exists as simply cause, action, and reaction. All of which are said to follow certain physical constants. Even if we were able to come up with an all encompassing equation that could predict the universe in its entirety, we would never be able to use it, only approximate it, which on the subatomic level would be horridly distorted in the physical world.

As a demonstration of this, I will use a mathematical metaphor:

Sir, tell me the circumference of a circle whose radius is exactly one, saying that we could measure the radius to an exact extent.

Well then child, you will find the circumference to be equal to two pi.

What exactly then is pi dear sir?

Well... its an immeasurable constant which we can approximate to the billionth billionth decimal point, never reaching conclusion.

We can see here that humans are incapable of understanding anything fully to the infinite extent. There may be natural limits based on smallest particle size, and energy conformity, but even more so, we will never be able to create a computer that will have a complete record of pi, or of any number for that matter. You see, even if we thought we could measure something to an exact amount, we would find that unless we became infinitely precise, then we would never know if there remains a slight variation on some other billionth billionth decimal down the line, changing the outcome of the equation completely.

[Unknown008]

Hmmm, InfoJunkie, I don't know what you did, but you have copied and pasted part of your post in your post... if you get what I mean.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

In reality, actions are not "created," they are performed, and God does not perform our actions, we do. Nor does He "create" our actions. Your thinly-veiled attempt at blaming God for our actions has missed the mark by a very, very wide margin, sadly.

I am not offering a debate about God here. I personally accept Him, however this is irrelevant of this argument. I am trying to show the two most general arguments concerning free will based on the two most common belief generalities. God (In the non-religious traditional sense) and Physics (In the science can answer all sense).

If you take the traditional sense of God, you will find he needs to be all powerful, all knowing, and of all places. I find little reason to provide "proof" that God had created all things if some one can attribute the three above adjectives to God. It is a matter of logic. For a god to be all powerful he has to be in control of all things. This would mean that existence must be a product of his will, if not then he would be subject to its laws and not all powerful. The idea that something could supersede him in any manner would diminish the "all" part of the above adjectives and reduce him to a more than humanly powerful and not all or omni.

I make no attempt to suggest that actions are not preformed. In a manner of physics and none against theology, you can find that actions are a causal result of time as a progression of one act to another. In fourth dimensional geometry, time would play a consequential role in what has happened by our perception. For something to move through time it must also exist in the other three dimensions. We use these four dimension vectors to calculate time difference among the satellites, create the H-Bomb, explain the speed of light, and a number of modern day achievements. This is the origin of E=mc^2.

This is the idea of space-time, being of one thing and not necessarily independent of each other, but rather dependent on one another. When you view space-time as a system, as a single object, you can see how an all powerful god could have created them as a sole object. As mere speculation, this may also explain omnipresence. For God exist outside of time, a fifth dimension if you will, he would also have to be a logical successor in the other four, in the same way a line of one dimension is part of a square of two dimensions.

In this sense, God has created a set of actions. He has put a specific event in a specific place in time to be carried out by one of His creations. I guess one way to look at it visually is like a film strip to an old movie. Each strip is one infinitesimal layer of a specific time in which he created a stationary universe to exist and then not, only to be replaced by the next.

Even if you dislike the prior argument and disagree, you will find that there are only two other logical options. That God created the first stationary universe and nudged it into motion and withdrew from it, leaving it to turn out as it wills; or secondly, the same as the former, however He pops His hand in once and a while to nudge it in the right direction. Either of these conclusions are lacking in free will.

In both you see that God has created a universe, and that He, in His omniscient capacity, has set an unalterable course in which the universe will travel (Physical Note from previous post). He had the ability, in the withdrawn argument, to alter the beginning in such a way that the output would be different from the original. Also having the power and knowledge to do anything He wants, God could have altered the beginning to achieve an infinite number of outputs, resulting any way he desires. Thus the configuration of His choice in the foundations of creation are in direct correlation with what will happen, and could have been altered in anyway he wishes.

This in no way quells some people's desire to blame God if he were to be true, and if not then who cares. The object of chioce is in no way disturbed by any of my previous arguments. Choice may defined as a rational being's ability to have an impact on the execution of a system of actions. This is not free choice, in the sense of uncoerced or happening randomly, but choice nonetheless.

How can I believe two seemingly contradictory thoughts: 1. God has made us like robots, doing exactly what he programmed into the system, and 2. we get to choose what we want to do regardless of the previous?

By the way, I respect you for reading this far, if you have done so already, here goes another attempt at explaining how my mind rationalizes...

There is a way to see this where it makes perfect sense. Lets say we broke existence into 3 orders of being. Supreme, rational, and non-rational. In a series of actions a non-rational object is unable to force an action on any other object, while the rational object is performing an action on another object not completely dependent on any surrounding motion. The supreme object would be the one actually performing the motions that interact between the rational and non-rational object.

For instance, say you punch a window. You are the rational object because you directed the energy from your body required to punch the window. The window is the non-rational object, because it is only capable of reacting to what has happened to it. God is the supreme object because he guides you into your action and also guides the window into its reaction, making it happen.

In this sense, a non-rational object is incapable of doing anything, solely acting on the physical constraints making it do what it needs. It can never do more or less than what is put into it. A rational object is able to exert will on anything non-rational, but never on anything else that is rational. Your body is non-rational, constrained by the physical laws of this world, however you thoughts and decisions are rational (and non-tangible, which is why non-rational objects cannot exercise any control over them). They have the ability to choose how they can interact with your body. God being supreme, makes the channels by which your thoughts operate and choose, and provides the action of the physical laws which constrain non-rational objects. He literally controls the transfer of energy in which both rational and non-rational objects behave, and interact.

In this way we are responsible for our actions over non-rational objects, and any choice we make. God is also responsible over the actions of all things. We can say through the power of God everything happens. We can also say that God answers to none, and thus unable to be judged as to how things happen. In either sense we are liable for our choices.

There is no contradiction of any type between God's omniscience and man's free will. You obviously believe that there is, but you have presented no evidence to support your personal belief in that regard.

God's omniscience is in no opposition of man's ability to make a decision.

The meaning of your phrase, "the author of the outcome is in the hands of God" is unclear due to your poor grammar -- the subject of the phrase is the word "author." The word "author" is modified by the phrase "of the outcome." In order to understand your belief in this regard, I would need to have your poor grammar clarified. Specifically, who do you believe to be"the author of the outcome?" You failed to specify your specific belief in that regard.

I am sorry as to my poor grammar, I was typing on a week of insomnia. I was meaning to say that the outcome is only known by God. I know I basically said that the author is in the hands of God, and the author has no relevance to anything previously said, I am unsure why I wrote it that way myself.

With regards to your second block of beliefs, I have to say that, yes, for God, everything is 100% predictable, but man's potency for prediction is limited, so no, not everything is predictable for man -- there are many, many, many things that no man will ever be able to predict.

100% Agreed. (See my previously most recent post here)

Life is certainly not an equation. An equation is a mathematical construct, and has no life within it at all.

I also agree with that. I simply wish to show that in life all things can be explained by mathematical laws and constants (within the physical argument).

Life is a state of being, and it boils down to consciousness: If an entity possesses consciousness, then it possesses life. If it does not possess consciousness, then it does not possess life. Consciousness is not dependent on the body, but is dependent on the soul, and the soul is the only living element within the body, just as sensation is never dependent on a glove, although a hand may still convey sensation even though covered by a glove. A glove may appear similar to a hand, but when the glove is removed from the hand, it has no independent ability for sensation.

Similarly, when the soul leaves the body, there is no independent consciousness in the body -- only the soul possesses consciousness, and so truly only the soul possesses life.

You have no logical or physical proof that can show this to be true, but rather that this is solely of your personal belief. I am willing to discuss this further, just not in this post.

You are absolutely correct when you say that there is no randomness in existence.

Thank you for agreeing, and that is what this all boils down to in respect to the OP's question. No matter of what belief you are, you would have to deny almost every science and religion to deny this.

[Purushadasa]

For a god to be all powerful he has to be in control of all things.

That is incorrect. God is indeed all-powerful, and among His powers is the ability to freely choose to give up control where and when He chooses to do so. If you posit that He does not possess that particular power, then you posit a "god" that is not all-powerful, i.e. you posit someone other than God Himself, and you mistakenly refer to that individual as "God."

This would mean that existence must be a product of his will, if not then he would be subject to its laws and not all powerful.

You have offered no evidence for that personal belief of yours. You are incorrect.

God has created a set of actions.

Again, you have failed to present any evidence for your personal beliefs that God "created" actions, or that actions can ever be "created." As I stated earlier, your belief that actions are "created" is incorrect: Actions are never "created," they are performed.

He has put a specific event in a specific place in time to be carried out by one of His creations. I guess one way to look at it visually is like a film strip to an old movie. Each strip is one infinitesimal layer of a specific time in which he created a stationary universe to exist and then not, only to be replaced by the next.

Sorry, but you made all of that up -- it is nothing but your own personal belief, and you have presented no evidence for any of it.

Even if you dislike the prior argument and disagree, you will find that there are only two other logical options. That God created the first stationary universe and nudged it into motion and withdrew from it, leaving it to turn out as it wills; or secondly, the same as the former, however He pops His hand in once and a while to nudge it in the right direction. Either of these conclusions are lacking in free will.

I understand that your mind is so limited that you are incapable of apprehending any more than the three bizarre, made-up, unscientific, and irrational options that you present above, but that is your shortcoming, not mine, and not God's. In reality, those three scenarios are merely figments of your imagination, and there is no scriptural, logical, or scientific basis for anyone else to suddenly believe in them as you do without any evidence.

This in no way quells some people's desire to blame God if he were to be true, and if not then who cares.

Pretty much only you care, because at this point, you are discussing your own deeply convoluted personal belief system, which sprung forth from your own overly-fertile imagination, with no support of any kind, be it logical, scientific, or scriptural.

God... guides you into your action and also guides the window into its reaction, making it happen.

God guides mankind to love Him and to love one another. God has never guided anyone to break a window, and God has never guided a window to react to anything. Again, you are simply displaying a whole lot of personal beliefs that you made up, without any supporting evidence of any type.

God being supreme, makes the channels by which your thoughts operate and choose, and provides the action of the physical laws which constrain non-rational objects. He literally controls the transfer of energy in which both rational and non-rational objects behave, and interact.

You are positing many personal beliefs bluntly, bizarre notions that you made up yourself, and offering absolutely no evidence of any type for any of them. Do you actually expect anyone to accept them without any evidence?? I suggest you don't hold your breath.

God is also responsible over the actions of all things.

That is flat-out incorrect. You are responsible for your actions, and I am responsible for my actions. In reality, God has no responsibilities at all, and you have failed to establish your personal belief that He could somehow be held responsible for your actions. It remains a strange, unsupported, irrational, illogical, and unscientific fantasy of yours that you think looks good on the screen, but is actually quite incorrect. Nobody but you believes in it, sadly.

I simply wish to show that in life all things can be explained by mathematical laws and constants (within the physical argument).

The problem is that you have failed to show that. In fact, there are many things in life that cannot be explained by mathematical laws and constants. God cannot be explained in that way, the soul cannot be explained in that way, consciousness cannot be explained in that way, a mother's love for her children cannot be explained in that way, and the laws of mathematics themselves cannot be explained in that way. Art appreciation, the rules of logic, and the nuances of consciousness also cannot be explained in terms of mathematical laws and constants. There are many, many more examples, but I'm pressed for time.

[Purushadasa]

Life is a state of being, and it boils down to consciousness: If an entity possesses consciousness, then it possesses life. If it does not possess consciousness, then it does not possess life. Consciousness is not dependent on the body, but is dependent on the soul, and the soul is the only living element within the body, just as sensation is never dependent on a glove, although a hand may still convey sensation even though covered by a glove. A glove may appear similar to a hand, but when the glove is removed from the hand, it has no independent ability for sensation.

Similarly, when the soul leaves the body, there is no independent consciousness in the body -- only the soul possesses consciousness, and so truly only the soul possesses life.


Infojunkie said:

"You have no logical or physical proof that can show this to be true, but rather that this is solely of your personal belief."

That is incorrect. I have no beliefs -- I am stating scientific facts. Your mind is crippled by a plethora of drab and uninteresting personal beliefs, so much so that you naturally attempt to extrapolate your own mental handicap in that regard onto others, but that won't work in my case.

Even though you rely so heavily on your own unsupported personal beliefs that you imagine beliefs to be everywhere outside your imagination as well, that is merely your own personal illusion, the rose-colored glasses that you willfully wear over your consciousness, stifling, coloring, and defiling the transmission of any and all truths that manage to come your way. The "beliefs" that you perceive to be coming from me do not exist. My consciousness holds factual knowledge, and I have given up on the entire concept of "belief Vs. disbelief."

Also, the mere act of adopting my writing style, while I can understand the temptation for an individual such as you, will nonetheless not make you correct. In order to be correct you would have to give up your unsupported, illogical, and made-up irrational belief system, get an education, do some research, and accept the facts as they are -- facts that have ample evidence to back them up, as I have done.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Your use of insults is not necessary. Further I'd like to say, in my own defense, if I stole you're writing style, then I deserve at least some credit for my ability to adapt so quickly.

Now, I have found only small places in any of your arguments saying anything besides "You're wrong, I'm right, you're an idiot...get over it!"

You have failed in providing little more than insults, lacking in a well formed logical proof/argument or any physical cited facts. Even the result which you come up with is not common knowledge nor has it occurred due to a logical succession.

I do give you credit for replying constructively to a few of my thoughts, and to do them justice I will also try to respond accordingly:

That is incorrect. God is indeed all-powerful, and among His powers is the ability to freely choose to give up control where and when He chooses to do so. If you posit that He does not possess that particular power, then you posit a "god" that is not all-powerful, ie, you posit someone other than God Himself, and you mistakenly refer to that individual as "God."

I cannot accept this answer. Many over the years have rationalized free will using this concept, however I propose a paradox. If I propose that God cannot give up any power, then you reply saying "Then you diminish the power of God by placing a limit on it."

I say on the other hand, by giving up power, God diminishes Himself. If there is one area that He were to give up then the meaning of all powerful wouldn't mean the same thing. Does almost all powerful God sound classy to you?

It seems to me that for God to give up control or to not be able to can diminish God's power. We find that either way God has met his end in a paradox. Many philosophers have either accepted this as truth saying "Proof of no god!" or others have formed a more complex complete argument providing something similar to the following:

I may also propose that anything irrational or illogical (Such as can God make a rock so heavy that He can not move it?) is not required to be part of His power. Such a thing cannot exist because it requires diverging truths, which in turn makes the question senseless. To illustrate this, I suggest you read through the following statements:

"Can God make a rock so big that He can not move it?"

"If He can, He provides a means in which to prove He can not do something else."

"If He can not, He provides a means in which He can not do it"

Neither argument proves anything. If you accept that there is a being that is all powerful, then you can reword the question, taking out the subjects saying "Can God do something He can not do?"

The answer is no, which in turn proves that he can do all. It works similar to a double negative. If the question says "Can he do this?" it requires a positive response, but when you throw in the negative aspect of the question, by retaining a negative answer you receive a positive value. Let me show you:

"Can God make a rock so big He can not move it?" = No
"Is God able to do something he can not do?" = No
"Is God not able to do something he can?" = No

Just because you answer no to the question does not degrade his power, but rather provides that the question is an absurd question posing no merit.

I understand that your mind is so limited that you are incapable of apprehending any more than the three bizarre, made-up, unscientific, and irrational options that you present above, but that is your shortcoming, not mine, and not God's. In reality, those three scenarios are merely figments of your imagination, and there is no scriptural, logical, or scientific basis for anyone else to suddenly believe in them as you do without any evidence.

They do provide a logical theory, as they do not have any proof against. If you would like to expand your mind greater than mine, I suggest you pose logical alternatives, and maybe a reason that mine cannot be.

God guides mankind to love Him and to love one another. God has never guided anyone to break a window, and God has never guided a window to react to anything. Again, you are simply displaying a whole lot of personal beliefs that you made up, without any supporting evidence of any type.

I am proposing a logical theory which you seem to find no other answer to besides "You are incorrect." This theory is sprung from my imagination, on the basis I provided previously in the argument. I also proposed alternatives to the argument. The only thing you have constructed here is your elaborate method of insulting others. I wish to question your opposing view here.

If God, guides mankind into loving Him, why then do so many oppose Him? If you're answer is free will, then why would God have to guide any of us to make a choice? Does He pick some and leave others? Does He work on everyone equally and they just are able to resist him differently? Please make sense of this for me.

That is flat-out incorrect. You are responsible for your actions, and I am responsible for my actions. In reality, God has no responsibilities at all, and you have failed to establish your personal belief that He could somehow be held responsible for your actions. It remains a strange, unsupported, irrational, illogical, and unscientific fantasy of yours that you think looks good on the screen, but is actually quite incorrect. Nobody but you believes in it, sadly.

I recall saying that we are responsible for our actions, and also that God answers to none. How then do you disagree? At this point I think you like to throw around words to see to what extent you can anger someone.

The problem is that you have failed to show that. In fact, there are many things in life that cannot be explained by mathematical laws and constants. God cannot be explained in that way, the soul cannot be explained in that way, consciousness cannot be explained in that way, a mother's love for her children cannot be explained in that way, and the laws of mathematics themselves cannot be explained in that way. Art appreciation, the rules of logic, and the nuances of consciousness also cannot be explained in terms of mathematical laws and constants. There are many, many more examples, but I'm pressed for time.

I agree. Once again, I point out that I am discussing many possibilities of many view points. I was hoping (in my first post) to construct a way of showing, based on popular theories that randomness cannot occur. However that has been established, this current run is far more interesting.

Further more, it what way can you say that math cannot demonstrate those principles. In respect to math, some of those things you demonstrated don't have to exist. Emotions could be simply chemical concentrations within the brain which induce a euphoria of brain activity in specific receptor neurons. Art appreciation: a combination of emotional and physical environmental variables playing roles within a specifically aligned set of neurons which input sensory and output action. All of the things you provide above could be more complex that currently understood and requiring further study.

At one point in history people were under threat of death for believing the earth navigated around the sun instead of the opposite. You may say that popular opinion was wrong, you may say that the apparent isn't always so etc... but you cannot deny that there is always more to learn and always something unknown being brought to light.

[Purushadasa]

I read half of your first paragraph, and other than informing you that I did not say any of what you claimed I said, I am completely finished with you.

I refuse to read any further from an individual as ignorant as you.

This conversation is now over.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Well, that went well. I see I made a new friend. I hope I didn't adulterate his feelings about this forum, it is truly a nice place.

Purushadasa: Welcome to AMHD.

[ebaines]

This conversation is now over.

Hallelujah! Now maybe we can talk about PHYSICS in this forum once again.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Hallelujah! Now maybe we can talk about PHYSICS in this forum once again.

Sorry to play into that...

[Purushadasa]

We are already discussing physics.

[Unknown008]

Not quite... you're 'overflowing' into religion. If you really want to discuss these things, that is concenrning religion, I'm not against it, but there is a specific forum for that, called religious discussions.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/

[Purushadasa]

Actually, you are the only one directing this discussion towards religion. Before you came along, it was about physics.

[Unknown008]

What did I do?

First, you revived that thread, being several years old.

Then, InfoJunkie mentioned two things that he thought was logical and from then on, you (both I should say) started to argue about religion. I didn't read the posts, because they were starting to go off-topic. I only pointed out a more appropriate area to have such discussions.

[Purushadasa]

I don't care how old the thread is -- someone else started talking about physics and the myth of "randomness," and I replied. Are you upset that I didn't check the date? Is there some rule that says nobody can reply after a certain amount of time? If so, then why did the site allow me to reply after the expiration?

I was discussing physics the whole time, and I did not even use the word "religion" until the physics conversation had ended, and you stepped in and began a discussion about religion (the one we're having now).

In four pages of discussion (a discussion of which you were not a participant), the word religion was only used once, by infojunkie, not me, and only in brief passing. In those pages, I never even mentioned the word religion, not even in response to infojunkie's brief use of the word.

Then you butted in and focused on the subject of religion exclusively, while hypocritically and falsely criticizing others for supposedly discussing the very subject you were discussing yourself, even though the others were not discussing religion at all until you rudely butted in.

I see -- you state above that you actually didn't read the posts -- that explains your ignorance of their content.

Since you didn't read the posts, I will inform you of their content so that you won't have to rely on your mistaken imagination anymore -- we were discussing physics.

This is the most appropriate area to discuss physics. You are the one who is attempting to derail the topic onto religion, not me. If you want to discuss religion so badly, then you need to go to that forum you mentioned. As for me, since I didn't even mention religion until you brought it up, I will remain here and continue discussing physics, as I have been doing all along.

The problem is you -- you butted in and rudely inserted the word religion into our conversation independently, and yet you imagine that you can order other people who were discussing physics the whole time to leave because you say so? What kind of a princess do you think you are? The fault lies with you, not with your newly-chosen environment.

In other words, it's time for you to cover your feet with slippers of silence rather than attempting to cover the world with a carpet of hypocrisy.

[AppMathDoc]

To divert away from religion and back to physics, let me suggest that randomness does exist, along with a well-respected line of argument for its existence that should allow for a civil -- and constructive -- discussion of the topic. First, what is "randomness?" We now know that a deterministic process can be unpredictable, so simply saying a process is random if it is not deterministic is not a good approach. Thus, in conjunction with the Quantum Theorists, we should probably restrict our discussion to the possible existence of objective randomness -- e.g. whether wave function collapse or spontaneous "separation" of wave functions is fully explained by non-local causality such as entanglement.

In this arena, we can turn to a well-established theorem, which is that for any probability measure, there must exist sets that are non-measurable. I suggest (as have many others --this isn't my idea) that the existence of non-measurable sets implies the necessity of objective randomness in any theory, much along the same lines as the Banach-Tarski paradox. Given any wave function, a probability can be assigned to the event of being outside a sphere, and if that sphere is large enough, the probability assigned to the interior of the sphere is greater than 0.5. Now divide --using measure preserving cuts -- that sphere into 2 identical, disjoint spheres with identical probabilities and notice that the probability of being in their union exceeds 1.

This is impossible, and so we must arrive at one of only a handful of conclusions. First, that some divine hand insures that the only sets that occur in nature are those that we can measure. Second, that set theory -- and thus all of mathematics itself -- is insufficient in the description of the universe. Or third -- and the one I prefer -- that the wave function fluctuates randomly during any process, mathematically or otherwise, and thus by the time any program is carried out the original supposition is no longer valid.

[TUT317]

To divert away from religion and back to physics, let me suggest that randomness does exist, along with a well-respected line of argument for its existence that should allow for a civil -- and constructive -- discussion of the topic. First, what is "randomness?" We now know that a deterministic process can be unpredictable, so simply saying a process is random if it is not deterministic is not a good approach. Thus, in conjunction with the Quantum Theorists, we should probably restrict our discussion to the possible existence of objective randomness -- e.g., whether or not wave function collapse or spontaneous "separation" of wave functions is fully explained by non-local causality such as entanglement.

In this arena, we can turn to a well-established theorem, which is that for any probability measure, there must exist sets that are non-measurable. I suggest (as have many others --this isn't my idea) that the existence of non-measurable sets implies the necessity of objective randomness in any theory, much along the same lines as the Banach-Tarski paradox. Given any wave function, a probability can be assigned to the event of being outside a sphere, and if that sphere is large enough, the probability assigned to the interior of the sphere is greater than 0.5. Now divide --using measure preserving cuts -- that sphere into 2 identical, disjoint spheres with identical probabilities and notice that the probability of being in their union exceeds 1.

This is impossible, and so we must arrive at one of only a handful of conclusions. First, that some divine hand insures that the only sets that occur in nature are those that we can measure. Second, that set theory -- and thus all of mathematics itself -- is insufficient in the description of the universe. Or third -- and the one I prefer -- that the wave function fluctuates randomly during any process, mathematically or otherwise, and thus by the time any program is carried out the original supposition is no longer valid.

Hi AppMathDoc,

I have a few questions.

Is your first possible conclusion and extension of ,'sufficient reason' first put forward by Leibnitz. That is, everything happens for a definite reason unless there is sufficient reason to say otherwise. Applied to your first conclusion, does this suggest that the double-slit experiment light source can take an infinite number of paths? There is no sufficient reason to believe that this is not possible. I think Leibnitz would argue that a divine hand ensures that all we are aware of is what can be regarded as the pre established harmony.

Leibnitz started the ball rolling in relation to identity with 'The Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles'. Does the Banach-Tarski paradox show that his principle is is true or false?

Max Black argued that the Leibnitz principle is false because in a symmetrical universe which contains two distinct non-identical objects( equidistant from the universes line of symmetry) in such a universe where there is no reference to any other external objects it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two objects. (sorry about the last sentence)


Regards


Tut

[InfoJunkie4Life]

No matter how you look at it randomness doesn't make sense.

Say you could control every parameter in a given experiment, and you understood the object in question such that you could know how it is supposed to behave, you could never say it has randomness. If you do you leave two things in question, first that you cannot know the behavior of the object in question if it behaves randomly, thus you cannot say there is a known model in which it should follow, and second if it were truly random, then it would seem to follow no scientific law, thus the very constants which you control around it are in question. This would leave us to say that either randomness cannot exist, and all things seemingly random, are just poorly understood, or that randomness exists only within certain situations (which we may be able to predict). You cannot say that nothing behaves by physical constants anymore.

Both the double slit experiment and the issues of wave collapse may show that Laplace was wrong in assuming that all things are predictable by velocity and position. We can say that our understanding of this science is very limited. In all of my reading I have seldom seen where any one person has tried to take many factual observances of science and put them into a theory that explains them all. Generally speaking they will accept one or two and then discredit the others, and say they are faulty because (your reason here).

Einstein showed us how fourth vector geometry can explain the relationship between speed, time, energy, and mass. Hawking suggested that directional time is relative to the viewer. We have seen how small particles demonstrate wave-particle duality. Einstein suggested an ether substance. Volta was able to comprehend electrochemical relationships. Biot, Oersted, and Ampère were able to show us how electromagnetism and electrodynamics work.

The works of Gauss, Columb, Bruster, Fresnes, Ohm, Faraday, and so many others' work seem to have this deep connection. All were invented by an understanding of how a specific confined space behaves in relation to others. Energy of any kind can be defined as an "observance" of a disruption in matter, but we find matter to be glorified energy. To say that something doesn't add up, and thus all the laws of nature are false, doesn't add up. Maybe we need to dig deeper before saying any one situation can prove randomness.

[TUT317]

No matter how you look at it randomness doesn't make sense.

Hi Info,

David Bohm would agree with you.

I recommend, 'The Holographic Universe' by Michael Talbot.

It is one of the best attempts at putting Bohm's ideas together I have read. It is impossible to say what is in the book in a few lines, but basically Bohm distinguishes between the implicate and explicate order. Bohm would say that randomness appears as a fact of physics because physics tends to look at the explicate order.

Bohm suggests that we are better off looking at the implicate order of things in order to gain a wholistic perspective. Such things as quantum entanglement and Bell's inequality need to be considered with Bohm.


Regards

Tut

[AppMathDoc]

I think the focus has to be on objective randomness -- that is randomness that (possibly) exists independent of our ability to describe it as random. Physicists in the 60's and 70's thought they had "done away" with hidden-variable determinism, thus implying that randomness must exist. However, all they had really done was to eliminate the possibility of local determinism. Quantum entanglement and the holographic principle imply that all local observations include "un-ignorable" global effects. This would be like saying that projectile motion near the earth's surface must include the effects of the Sun, the Moon, and Jupiter, regardless of scale.

It also introduces the possibility that what we might identify as "randomness" might simply be the effect of "the film running at an accelerated rate," because we not only must consider the spatial effects of the holographic principle, but also the temporal, in which motion on "one side" of the universe might look on that side to take only a few seconds, but on the "other side" would seem as if it spanned centuries. That is, if you have a version of Citizen Kane that runs at 24 frames per second that you instead ran at 2400 frames per second, then your audience might think it is "random" rather than "classic."

Thus, arguing for the existence of randomness requires consideration of global scales -- such as spheres of arbitrary size. Also, w.r.t. the "symmetry" argument of Max Black, have you read Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" in which he considers a similar problem -- that of the spinning of Newton's bucket.