Printable View
OK, I am creating this thread mainly down to a debate I have started having (elsewhere) with Kedaman.
Is there such a thing as randomness (in the strictest sense)? If we knew enough about any given system, would we always find the underlying rules that govern it's behaviour or are somethings (like quantum mechanics) irreducably random?
I think this question is also equivilant to: Is the universe fundamentally deterministic or probabalistic?
I can swear that some of the errors my app throw in some of my customers faces occur at total randomness :p
Simon
Ok, I know you agree with me when I say that universe is subjective, but your world view is still a mysterium to me, I remember you said that universe is both subjective and objective, which I don't understand, neither is the point in QM, which clearly only has practical use at a very limited range of phenomenons. Unless you have ideas of your own, which I can directly compare to and conftront with, I will just go on with my world view, and then next explain why I think randomness is unnessesary and unreasonable element.
Kedaman
Alright, I'll try to explain. I believe that there is an objective and external source of energy that is the raw data of existance itself. On it's own, it is meaningless fluctuations of energy/data. It is subjective interpretation that extracts/derives meaning from this raw data.Quote:
Ok, I know you agree with me when I say that universe is subjective, but your world view is still a mysterium to me, I remember you said that universe is both subjective and objective, which I don't understand...
This extrapolated meaning is what I call information. This information is not a true representation of the underlying reality but nethertheless is a useful tool to understanding reality.
Hence I believe that objectivity and meaning are two complimentary properties of reality. The more you have of one, t he less you have of the other.
That is where you are wrong. Quantum mechanics has many practical applications and more are being developed all the time. Think about the semi-conducter (used to make the transistor) as a prime example.Quote:
... neither is the point in QM, which clearly only has practical use at a very limited range of phenomenons.
Please don't feel you have to change your world view for my benefit but I am curious to know why you reject the idea (that is generally accepted by most modern physisists today) that quantum behaviour is irreducably random.Quote:
Unless you have ideas of your own, which I can directly compare to and conftront with, I will just go on with my world view, and then next explain why I think randomness is unnessesary and unreasonable element.
I don't know what I can say to you to convince you of the randomness of sub-atomic particles but I would like to know why you reject it. It seems to me that a probabalistic universe is more compatible with your notion of a subjective universe.
At any given time the clock may strike two.
Simon
I have to consider your world view to be generally objective, since you introduce an absolute external resource of "energy/data" for information. In other words, the subjective interpretation is a dependent system within the Objective universe.Quote:
Alright, I'll try to explain. I believe that there is an objective and external source of energy that is the raw data of existance itself. On it's own, it is meaningless fluctuations of energy/data.
It is subjective interpretation that extracts/derives meaning from this raw data. This extrapolated meaning is what I call information. This information is not a true representation of the underlying reality but nethertheless is a useful tool to understanding reality.
You disagree with Quantum Mechanics since one of the most important points in QM is that there exist no Objective Reality. Everything is based on the subjective interpretation.
You argue that you can interpret information from "raw data", can you verify the correctness of it or do you consider it as tool? In any cases how much can you rely on them and why?
I am very unsure what you mean. You said earlier "This information is not a true representation of the underlying reality" and now you say that both complements reality, is there two layers of reality?Quote:
Hence I believe that objectivity and meaning are two complimentary properties of reality. The more you have of one, t he less you have of the other
We could agrue later on what is "many" and what "very limited range" is.Quote:
That is where you are wrong. Quantum mechanics has many practical applications and more are being developed all the time. Think about the semi-conducter (used to make the transistor) as a prime example.
I assure you I am very confident that my world view won't change. I am also curious about your perspective, but i need to know a little more before I can start :)Quote:
Please don't feel you have to change your world view for my benefit but I am curious to know why you reject the idea (that is generally accepted by most modern physisists today) that quantum behaviour is irreducably random.
I don't know what I can say to you to convince you of the randomness of sub-atomic particles but I would like to know why you reject it. It seems to me that a probabalistic universe is more compatible with your notion of a subjective universe.
Kedaman
Ok, if it must be one or the other, then consider it objective.Quote:
I have to consider your world view to be generally objective, since you introduce an absolute external resource of "energy/data" for information. In other words, the subjective interpretation is a dependent system within the Objective universe.
What is it that gives you the impression that quantum mechanics relys on there being no objective reality? Why can't the universe be both probabalistic and objective?Quote:
You disagree with Quantum Mechanics since one of the most important points in QM is that there exist no Objective Reality. Everything is based on the subjective interpretation.
To think of reality as being entirely subjective (therefore nothing but a self-created delusion), is a belief of solispism and I've never heard a quantum physisist subscribe to that world view.
When two properties are complimentary, it means they both cannot be known (with accuracy) at the same time. For example, Heinsburg's uncertainty principle states that position and momentum are two complimentary properties of an electron.Quote:
I am very unsure what you mean. You said earlier "This information is not a true representation of the underlying reality" and now you say that both complements reality, is there two layers of reality?
OK, fair enough. The point is, though, is that the concepts of quantum mechanics are not confined merely to the abstract. They do have practical uses and applications. Whether they are many or few is irrelevant really.Quote:
We could agrue later on what is "many" and what "very limited range" is.
Simon
Probabilistic is such a problematic concept now, for your subjective interpretation things appear probabilistic, but that is due to your inpretation, not due to that the objective universe is doublesided or has some inbound mystisism or weirdness that produces randomness. I can't think of a objective universe that consists anything like Heinsburg's uncertainty principle.Quote:
What is it that gives you the impression that quantum mechanics relys on there being no objective reality? Why can't the universe be both probabalistic and objective?
But I guess you are stubborn and will say that this randomness is just there, in the objective reality, no matter how illogical that appears to me. In that case it will be harder for me to compare our views.
As I understand it's quantum physisist don't have a world view (because it's unnesseary), or has an objective one and use QM as a tool. This is though just how I think it might be.Quote:
To think of reality as being entirely subjective (therefore nothing but a self-created delusion), is a belief of solispism and I've never heard a quantum physisist subscribe to that world view.
Okay I can start here. My universe looks quite subjective, it doesn't have to be, depends what you define as objective. The fundamental difference between most people's views is that mine is very simple and others have so to speak unlimitedly complex ones. Therefore most don't understand themselves and never will completely.
In my universe there exist two things, the observer (me) and the information, I leaved out the "raw data/energy" part because it is not actually visible, experiencable or nessesary, everything i come in contact with is information. The objective version would be that there is a certain amount of observers and a collective of information. I don't want to argue about that one yet because I haven't laid enough thought on it. And I believe you know what information is by now, I think have discussed enough with you about it.
YEah, right on keda's!
These crazy people delude themselves with false truths and comforts when they know s**t!
Simomn, you talk s**t. You can't say anymore than "I think therefore I am" without going too far.
Kedaman
I do consider information as a tool. I think there are ways of increasing the certainty of the validity of the informaiton we recevie (e.g. many people sharing the same experience or comming to the same conclusing) but there is no way to be absolutely certain of the validity of any given piece of information.Quote:
You argue that you can interpret information from "raw data", can you verify the correctness of it or do you consider it as tool? In any cases how much can you rely on them and why?
That's why I think it is wrong (and even dangerous) to hold absolute beliefs. Me must never forget that our perceptions finite and subjective and we never get the full story.
OK, it could be that we just think there are no underlying patterns to quantum behaviour if we admit that we cannot ever know anything with absolute cetainty. But why must there be underlying patterns? How can you be so certain of that?Quote:
Probabilistic is such a problematic concept now, for your subjective interpretation things appear probabilistic, but that is due to your inpretation, not due to that the objective universe is doublesided or has some inbound mystisism or weirdness that produces randomness. I can't think of a objective universe that consists anything like Heinsburg's uncertainty principle.
OK, where does the "information" come from? Is it just part of you? If so, then there is only you and information is nothing more than illusion. If you accept that the information is real, and that it doesn't come from you, there must be some sort of objective reality. You can't be sure of what's in it but you know it's there because you're receiving input from it.Quote:
In my universe there exist two things, the observer (me) and the information, I leaved out the "raw data/energy" part because it is not actually visible, experiencable or nessesary, everything i come in contact with is information.
I have two good solutions to that, the first I think i've explained to you earlier, that we are "dreaming" our subjectivity and when we wake up we will be able to see everything objectively. If you remember, I came up with a reality tree as well, where as you can refer to layers of realities which reminds a bit of inheritance. Actually this is the one that I have put most thought in, and also like better because it dismisses solipsism in a nice way.Quote:
OK, where does the "information" come from? Is it just part of you? If so, then there is only you and information is nothing more than illusion. If you accept that the information is real, and that it doesn't come from you, there must be some sort of objective reality. You can't be sure of what's in it but you know it's there because you're receiving input from it.
Anyways I redirect you to something I wrote a while ago, which is a bit different, not entirely solipsistic view, which elaborates a bit on what information is and how and why it exist and how you can change your world and why something seems consistent:
http://www.abo.fi/~ksugii/onthissite...0universe.html
Kedaman
OK, I'm not entirely convinced on how "good" your solutions are but I'm not sure I fully understand them yet.
I know you have told me this before but I don't think I truly grasp it. If you "wake up" from you subjective dreaming, and see everything objectively then there are implications that go along with that (I think).Quote:
we are "dreaming" our subjectivity and when we wake up we will be able to see everything objectively.
Firstly, you will be simultanously aware of everything at once and from every perspective. Basically, you will be omnipresent and omni aware. You will be at one with the universe, there will be no "us and them" concepts, just you and the universe. Effectively, some sort of God like being.
Secondly, why are you asleep in the first place? What will it take to wake up? What sort of existance will you be going back to when you do wake up? A pretty lonely one I would imagine.
As for your second solution, you'll have to give me a little more time to digest that. I'll get back to you on that concept.
Simon
Ok, i'll explain
I think perspective is a state you achieve with encapsulation, you shield yourself from boring, disgusting, painfull all kinds of negative information. You also forget, get used to, select, process and sort out the best information, constantly advancing towards something. The word I'm seeking is evolution.
2a. What do you do as a "stupid" God? Not much to do, you won't know what good there can be in existance. Trough evolution you became more and more intelligent, information you refined to become the complex detailed colorfull world you now live in made a perfect environment for you and give contents to the word realism.
1. Anyways if you wake up, you become aware of everything again, yes omniscient, probably omnipotent, maybe lonely, maybe united.
2b. To wake up you have to become intelligent enough to understand that it is a dreamworld you live in
2c. Maybe you will be, that depends how much you have learnt in your dreamworld, I guess if you find out the importance of life and the way to be perfectly happy, then you could return to the real world.
Kedaman
Ok, I see a little more clearly now your perspective. But, I still don't see why it's necessary to view the world as deterministic. What can't there be randomness in an objective world?
Just as underlying patterns may become apparent when a seeminly random system is seen objectively, a seemingly ordered system may reveal underlying randomness when no longer seen subjectively.
Why do you want to live in a deterministic universe? Can you reconcile free-will in such a medium? Do you care about free will? At least a probabalistic universe allows for that.
Determinism doesn't apply simon, if you make your choises, if it's you and only you able to operate information, nothing will happen unless you say so. Randomness is odd, how can there suddenly be information out of nowhere?
I don't see the logic in this simon, or do you just implicate the coexistance of that ability?Quote:
Why do you want to live in a deterministic universe? Can you reconcile free-will in such a medium? Do you care about free will? At least a probabalistic universe allows for that.
Kedaman
How can you make choices if time is flowing along an innevitable path that cannot be changed? Determinism implies every set of events is casued completely by those that preceeded them. There is no room for manover. No room for choosing. There is nothing to choose from, only a predetermined sequence of events.Quote:
Determinism doesn't apply simon, if you make your choises, if it's you and only you able to operate information, nothing will happen unless you say so.
You exist don't you? Where did you come from. Were you always here or did you spontaneously appear from nothing?Quote:
Randomness is odd, how can there suddenly be information out of nowhere?
A Probabalistic universe gives us options. An array of outcomes are possible from a given starting point. We cannot say (with absolute certainty) which of those outcomes will occur. We can only give probabilities and then one will be randomly selected based on those probabilities.Quote:
I don't see the logic in this simon, or do you just implicate the coexistance of that ability?
This may allow for free will if we are (sometimes) able to choose which of the outcomes we "live out".
That's an illusion! Time doesn't exist. If information change, the past is erased, no duplication is made, unless you say so.Quote:
How can you make choices if time is flowing along an innevitable path that cannot be changed? Determinism implies every set of events is casued completely by those that preceeded them. There is no room for manover. No room for choosing. There is nothing to choose from, only a predetermined sequence of events.
In other words, I don't think universe is deterministic, and I don't think randomness implicates that you get to choose.
I didn't come from, information does, randomness is defined as information that appear from nothing. And that is ODD, WEIRD, SUPERNATURAL.Quote:
You exist don't you? Where did you come from. Were you always here or did you spontaneously appear from nothing?
I don't know what you mean by options and "choises" because you say they somehow are connected to the random elements. Can you explain? To me, you complicate what is obviously simple.Quote:
A Probabalistic universe gives us options. An array of outcomes are possible from a given starting point. We cannot say (with absolute certainty) which of those outcomes will occur. We can only give probabilities and then one will be randomly selected based on those probabilities.
This may allow for free will if we are (sometimes) able to choose which of the outcomes we "live out".
Kedaman
OK, so time doesn't exist. Fair enough. But one of the following must apply:Quote:
That's an illusion! Time doesn't exist. If information change, the past is erased, no duplication is made, unless you say so.
In other words, I don't think universe is deterministic, and I don't think randomness implicates that you get to choose.
1) The current state of the universe completely determines the subsequant state.
i.e. a deterministic universe
2) The current state of the universe determines the range of possibilities for the subsequant state.
i.e. a probabilistic universe
3) The current state of the universe has no bearing whatsoever on the subsequant state.
i.e. a completely random universe
Since the third option seems to imply a completely disordered universe with no pattern whatsoever and things disappearing and appearing arbitarilly all over the place, it seems unlikely (to me) that this is the case.
Most people believe that the universe behaves according to either option 1 or 2.
OK, you're just evading the question. Where does information come from then?Quote:
I didn't come from, information does, randomness is defined as information that appear from nothing. And that is ODD, WEIRD, SUPERNATURAL.
If we accept that option 2 is the case, then consider this example:Quote:
I don't know what you mean by options and "choises" because you say they somehow are connected to the random elements. Can you explain?
A particular state of the universe has occurred in which there are two possible outcomes (subsequant states). Either have a 50/50 chance of occurring. There is nothing about the current state that tells you which one will occur (if it did, it would not be a probabilistic universe but rather a deterministic one). Therefore, the future is randomly selected from these two possibilities.
That's how randomness comes into it. It's a sort of "restricted" randomness.
Well, to me, you are simplifying the obviously complex. :pQuote:
To me, you complicate what is obviously simple.
What I don't understand is what you define choise as.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
[B]Kedaman
OK, so time doesn't exist. Fair enough. But one of the following must apply:
1) The current state of the universe completely determines the subsequant state.
i.e. a deterministic universe
2) The current state of the universe determines the range of possibilities for the subsequant state.
i.e. a probabilistic universe
3) The current state of the universe has no bearing whatsoever on the subsequant state.
i.e. a completely random universe
Since the third option seems to imply a completely disordered universe with no pattern whatsoever and things disappearing and appearing arbitarilly all over the place, it seems unlikely (to me) that this is the case.
Most people believe that the universe behaves according to either option 1 or 2.
I manipulate information, and by doing so I change the state of universe. If that doesn't say anything to you then we are both totally confused with each other.
Me. I create, delete and process information. Did you real what I wrote on that page?Quote:
OK, you're just evading the question. Where does information come from then?
Okay I understand that perfectly, but I think it is supernatural. I think if I wasn't here, the universe would be static, the illusion of time wouldn't exist, all information would be unchanged until I decide to come back and continue processing it. Imagine a guy sitting in front of his desktop with papers on it, he leaves for dinner, when he comes back, everything is as he left it.Quote:
If we accept that option 2 is the case, then consider this example:
A particular state of the universe has occurred in which there are two possible outcomes (subsequant states). Either have a 50/50 chance of occurring. There is nothing about the current state that tells you which one will occur (if it did, it would not be a probabilistic universe but rather a deterministic one). Therefore, the future is randomly selected from these two possibilities.
That's how randomness comes into it. It's a sort of "restricted" randomness.
Ok, but wouldn't you agree that is would be better with a simple one if it fits universe as well?Quote:
Well, to me, you are simplifying the obviously complex. :p
Kedaman
Ok, I have read (and am still digesting) your philosophy on the universe and information.
There are things that I agree with such as being prisoners of our own minds and that we have created prisons for ourselves to live in.
But, you don't really explain where information comes from:
This seems to imply that we spontaneously generated information from nothing. Information popped into our minds from nowehere.Quote:
You were probably very bored, so you began to play with ideas, which were simple pieces of information, you could start to imagine stuff based on the information and slowly you built up a whole castle of information which slowly but surely become more and more "real" finally you forgot how to have control over it and here you are.
You don't like the thought of things spontaneously popping into existance yet, in the end, you fall back on it to explain where information came from.Quote:
...but I think it is supernatural.
Can you create new information (that isn't just a way of rephrasing old information)? What about at the beginning, when there wasn't any information. How did you create that new information.Quote:
I create, delete and process information.
You subscribe to the solopsist view point and, at the end of the day, that's your perogative. It cannot be disproved. But, you cannot be any more certain of that than I can be certain of the validity of my beleifs.
I don't think it is an explanation that fits. If the universe only contains me (and the information that I created) where does all the (apparent) complexity come from? In a universe with multiple autonymous entities that interact, the source of the complexity is obvious.Quote:
Ok, but wouldn't you agree that is would be better with a simple one if it fits universe as well?
Simon
> Information popped into our minds from nowehere.
You like the thought of being passive.
> You don't like the thought of things spontaneously popping into existance
I rather sit by my computer than watch TV.
>yet in the end, you fall back on it to explain where information came from.
> Can you create new information
Yes. I don't like to think myself as passive.
> How did you create that new information.
I am me, I create information, I define myself as a information creator, modifier and destroyer, that is who I am. SIMPLE AND PLAIN.
> What about at the beginning, when there wasn't any information.
Define creativity to me. Define intelligence. How does they work?
> You subscribe to the solopsist view point and, at the end of the day, that's your perogative.
That is not what I want. I don't want to be solipsist, that is why I thought about collective information, but that doesn't solve anything. In the end, nothing will change, unless I want to of course :)
> It cannot be disproved. But, you cannot be any more certain of that than I can be certain of the validity of my beleifs.
And the last thing i'm out after is truth, because there is no need for truth. Just the information.
> I don't think it is an explanation that fits. If the universe only contains me (and the information that I created) where does all the (apparent) complexity come from? In a universe with multiple autonymous entities that interact, the source of the complexity is obvious
Where do you find multiple autonymous entities that interact without you being involved in the first place? Entities seems autonymous, because they are sent into your unconscious part, and stay there as long as you find it convenient to have them there. What source are you talking about?
Kedaman
Not really. I see our minds as self-organising. I see our brains as physical entities that allow data to data to organise itself. This is far from an entity that passively records and manipulates information. The information that's already in the system acts to interpret new information.Quote:
You like the thought of being passive.
That's not the same. A self organising system doesn't passively receive information and yet there is no capacity for creating completely new information. It relies on being in an environment that supplies it with constantly new data to fuel it's development.Quote:
> Can you create new information
Yes. I don't like to think myself as passive.
A self organising system actively interprets data to derive useful information.
What you are describing goes beyond actively interpreting data. Indeed, in your world, there is no "external environment" to receive data from. There is just you. So, new information, if not supplied externally must either have always been there or else spontaneously emerge from nothing.
Then you must be truly God-like! :)Quote:
I am me, I create information, I define myself as a information creator, modifier and destroyer, that is who I am. SIMPLE AND PLAIN.
Ok, you can explain away the complexity like that if you want to but the point still remains: How did the complexity get there in the first place. In my world complexity comes from comes from the environment in which I am situated. In your world, complexity always existed in your mind or else it spontaneously popped into existance.Quote:
Where do you find multiple autonymous entities that interact without you being involved in the first place? Entities seems autonymous, because they are sent into your unconscious part, and stay there as long as you find it convenient to have them there. What source are you talking about?
Simon
>Not really. I see our minds as self-organising. I see our brains as physical entities that allow data to data to organise itself. This is far from an entity that passively records and manipulates information. The information that's already in the system acts to interpret new information.
I am unsure what you mean by the underlined.
> That's not the same. A self organising system doesn't passively receive information and yet there is no capacity for creating completely new information. It relies on being in an environment that supplies it with constantly new data to fuel it's development.
I understand you, So you mean that information either has been out there from the begining or became created? Can you change information? How do you change your environment? Where does randomness come in?
> A self organising system actively interprets data to derive useful information.
What is data? Has it something to do with "embodyment" of information? How does this interpretation work?
> What you are describing goes beyond actively interpreting data. Indeed, in your world, there is no "external environment" to receive data from. There is just you. So, new information, if not supplied externally must either have always been there or else spontaneously emerge from nothing.
I create information every time i define something. Every time I enter a single word here I create something new. Information doesn't morph doesn't dissappear or appear from nothing.
> Then you must be truly God-like!
I am omnipotent indeed, but not omniscient :p
> Ok, you can explain away the complexity like that if you want to but the point still remains: How did the complexity get there in the first place. In my world complexity comes from comes from the environment in which I am situated. In your world, complexity always existed in your mind or else it spontaneously popped into existance.
I am not sure if you still understand me. I create information, I don't want to be conscious about it all the time, I put it aside, I can use it any time, but as long as I don't go manipulate it It will go deeper into the unconscious part of me, which is why there is complexity. Do you know what a splay-tree is? It is a datastructure that effectively stays in optimal condition since every time you access an item in the tree, it will perform a set of AVL-rotations to bring that item to the top of the tree. In that way you have easier to access that item next time, these rotations will cause the datastructure to keep itself close to as "splay" as possible, but that's not really relevant here. The idea is that you will have easier access to data you often use. Maybe this wasn't a too good example, because I access the information about say gravity all the time but I am on the other hand not able to change that, since it is so deep and much other information relies on gravity, which I have to manipulate to work with the change of gravity, some kind of built in protection of information, so that I can't ruin million years of work in a second.
Kedaman
OK, a self organising system does not simply receive and interpret information (although it may do). In the case of humans (as do all other life forms, but not only life forms), we have the ability to affect our environment so there is a two way interaction.Quote:
I understand you, So you mean that information either has been out there from the begining or became created? Can you change information? How do you change your environment? Where does randomness come in?
For a complete definition and in-depth analysis of self-organising systems, try one of these links:
http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/complex/
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
OK, what you're talking about here, your definition of creating something new is not the same as mine. I am not talking about processing existing information to produce something different. That's becasue it isn't really new. It's just re-presenting old ideas or combining old ideas in a different way. When I talk about creating something new, I'm talking about bringing into existance something for which there was no basis previously. No combination of existing information would ever produce it. If you say that you can do this then I would say that is no less mystical than something spontaneously appearing from nothing. Indeed, it is much the same thing.Quote:
I create information every time i define something. Every time I enter a single word here I create something new. Information doesn't morph doesn't dissappear or appear from nothing.
I don't really care about whether something is from the consious or sub-consious (for the purpose of this debate). If I draw something from deep within my sub-consious, it is not really new. It might seem new but it isn't.
I understand what you're getting at with your "splay-tree" and this is probably a half decent model of the way the mind works. I cannot see the relevance to our current discussion though.
Simon
I read the definition of self organising systems as well as complexity theory and it took me a while to understand what was wrong with it, but when it hit me it was perfectly clear.
It is a subjective matter.
- State does not exist, but is evaluated.
Since there is no medium, no states are stored, my consciousness will evaluate the state based on current set of information. Therefore objectively speaking (about information) state is an illusion. That in turn means a system is an illusion as well as self organising systems.
Isn't really new? Why? How do you define creation of information? What changes information?Quote:
OK, what you're talking about here, your definition of creating something new is not the same as mine. I am not talking about processing existing information to produce something different. That's becasue it isn't really new. It's just re-presenting old ideas or combining old ideas in a different way.
I am confused, sometimes you state you act systematically based on input to produce output. When I ask you if you are passive, a man without choise, you disagree. Then again you say you can't produce anything "new". To me that means you cannot change enviroment either.Quote:
I'm talking about bringing into existance something for which there was no basis previously. No combination of existing information would ever produce it. If you say that you can do this then I would say that is no less mystical than something spontaneously appearing from nothing. Indeed, it is much the same thing.
First off I think you are denying yourself in some way. Do you exist? Do you have consciousness? What's the purpose of it? Do you believe it just "watches" what you do, the actions you take are just systematical responses which you have nothing to say. Do you think it is an illusion to choose?
Mystical or not, that is axiomatic. I experience that I create new information. I woudn't be able to think, I wouldn't be able to choose, if I couldn't create information. If you call it mystic, it is me you call mystic, and I am the only legal source for new information, because I represent and experience thinking, the meaning of my existance. If that is odd to you, how can you live with it?
You are so wrapped up in the physical world, you believe there are systems everywhere, there are patterns and that there is states, data, and that you can interpret them. Yet you have never seen them, yet you only see the same information I see, yet you just need the worldview I have presented, to explain universe. But you choose to believe in systems, because they are "apparent". I say they are subjective interpretations. What exists out there, is pure information.
It is difficult to use the term random without creating misunderstandings. I try to avoid using it in discussions like the current one. Dictionary definitions and common notions tend to be simplistic. Some consider it a synonym for unpredictable, but incredibly precise clocks have been based on random phenomena. I think it is better to think of it as a term applied to data associated with probability theory, and not try to find a definition in 20 or less words.
Perhaps it is best to consider it defined by the context of its usage.Perhaps the implications of statements like the above should be used as the only definitions of random, in which case knowledge of so called random processes and/or probability theory is required for an understanding of the term random. Formal logic uses terms undefined except by their context in the axioms. Perhaps random should be similarly treated as an undefined term in the discipline of probability theory.Quote:
The mathematics of statistics and probability theory are applicable to phenomena referred to as random processes. The data resulting from such processes is sometimes called random data. Pseudo random number generators are often used by software which attempts to simulate random processes.
Following is some background on the mathematics of probability.
First, I am fairly sure that probability was first formally studied by Descartes and Pascal in the sixteen hundreds. It was initially developed due to questions about various gambling games. By the late eighteen hundreds, probability theory was about as well developed as it is today.
It is interesting to note that while probability theory was being developed, the universe was considered to be deterministic. The mathematicians and physicists of that era believed that probability theory was valuable only because pertinent deterministic laws had not yet been discovered and/or because it was it was not possible to collect all the data and do the calculations required for obtaining analytical answers to certain questions. By the end of the 19th century, it was generally believed, that it was possible in principal to predict the future of the universe, but that in practice, it could not be done.
While developing probability theory, mathematicians made assumptions relating to the nature of uncaused or random events, while believing that there were no such events. It was generally believed possible in principal to predict the results of individual dice tosses and single plays at the roulette table, but impractical to do so. The laws of probability developed by believers in determinism were quite successful in analyzing gambling games and other phenomena. However, most people believe that craps and roulette are governed by the laws of mechanics, generally believed to be deterministic.
By about 1920-1930, various quantum processes were known to produce data that matched the predictions of probability theory very precisely. Furthermore, the Uncertainty Principle was accepted by most physicists. The implications are profound. Knowledgeable people still consider craps and roulette to be governed by the laws of mechanics, but no longer feel confident that those laws are deterministic. It is not the mathematics behind the laws that is questioned, it is the physical processes and the applicability of the deterministic mathematics that has been called into question.
Unassailable mathematical logic developed a theory about uncaused or probabilistic processes. The theory was developed by men who believed in determinism, but needed a practical tool for use when applicable deterministic equations were unknown or impractical. It was an abstract discipline. Then physical processes were discovered that matched the mathematics, and were such that one is not compelled to believe cause-effect relationships existed. Dice and roulette are complex processes, allowing one to imagine some complex underlying deterministic causes. Radioactive decay and various quantum processes do not seem complex. If there is some deterministic cause, it should be obvious or at least imaginable.
The data associated with processes like radioactive decay and the implications of the Uncertainty Principle compel me to believe in a non deterministic universe.
Physicists are aware that quantum precesses underlie all the all the phenomena of the world of our senses. If the quantum processes are not deterministic, then the world of our senses cannot be deterministic. Radioactive decay is the only phenomenon which some non-physicists recognize as being caused by underlying quantum processes, so it is a good phenomenon for us to consider.
Have you ever wondered why the half life is used to describe the rate of radioactive decay? Why not the whole life? The answer is that the half life can be determined very precisely for many radioactive materials, but the whole life can only be approximately measured or predicted.
If the half life of a material is one year and you have 16 grams of it, in one year 8 grams will have decayed, leaving 8 grams. In two years 4 grams will remain, and in 3 years there will be two grams. Similar measurements can be made for the 10% life, the quarter life, et cetera. The half life was chosen as a convenient but arbitrary way of specifying the rate. The decay rate is so precise that some of the most accurate clocks ever built were based on radioactive decay.
Radioactive decay could be modeled by assuming that god or the laws of physics have assigned a coin to each atom of a radioactive material. During the half life, each coin is flipped. If the coin lands heads, the corresponding atom decays. If it lands tails, the atom survives.
Oddly enough, if you have 16 atoms instead of 16 grams, the decay rate is not so precise. In one half life only 6 or 7 atoms might decay, or perhaps 9 or 10 might decay. It is possible that all 16 decay or none decay, but these possibilities are unlikely. If only one atom remains, there is a probability of ½ that it will last two half lives, 1/4 that it will last 3 half lives, et cetera. So the whole life cannot be precisely specified. In fact, the half life for a few atoms cannot be precisely specified.
Probability theory is some times referred to as the law of large numbers. If a large number of trials are made, the data is expected to follow the laws more precisely, and in practice this happens. For a smaller number of trials, the reality does not match the theory as well. This is exactly how radioactive decay works. It is similar to what happens in a casino. If you make about one hundred bets or less at the craps table, you might be a winner (It happens about 40% of the time), but if you play 6-8 hours a day for several days, making many thousands of bets, the casino will slowly but surely exhaust your bankroll.
A gram of a radioactive material consists of more than 10E21 atoms. With that many atoms, the predictions of probability theory match the decay rates with astonishing precision. As expected. For100 atoms or less, the probabilities are not accurate predictors of the number of decaying atoms, also as expected by the theory.
The above compels me to believe that radioactive decay is a probabilistic process rather than a deterministic one. This view also seems consistent with the uncertainty principle.
All quantum world processes seem to be similarly probabilistic. Since the world of our senses is based on quantum world phenomena, it seems reasonable to believe that the universe in general is probabilistic rather than deterministic. I consider it silly to believe otherwise.
What could be discovered in the future to contraindicate the probabilistic view? The nature of radioactive decay was well known before science was aware of the structure of the nucleus. When protons and neutrons were discovered as underlying building blocks, the probabilistic data did not suddenly seem to be deterministic. Science still had no deterministic explanation for why a nucleus decayed. Similarly, QCD theory with its quarks and gluons neither changed the probabilistic nature of the data nor did it provide a deterministic explanation for radioactive decay.
Suppose science discovers structure underlying the quarks and gluons and/or replaces QCD with a better theory? Such discoveries cannot change the probabilistic nature of the data. So long as the data is probabilistic, how can it be rational to believe that the phenomenon will ever be discovered to be deterministic?
What does QCD stand for?
QCD stands for Quantum ChromoDynamics. It is the current theory that talks about Quarks & Gluons, which are the building blocks for protons and neutrons. I think it talks about other particles also.
The physicists who developed it are some what whimsical. They talk about properties like strangeness, color, up, and down. So you can have a strange blue up quark.
The words have very little to do with the properties. They were chosen arbitrarily to suggest that the properties cannot be modeled by classical world properites.
Quantum theory is difficult to understand because our brains have been trained to cope with the classical world of our senses. Over a million years of evolution has hard wired certain perceptions and ways of thinking into our minds. The quantum world is so different from the classical world that we are just not equiped to understand it.
Visualizing and understanding the quantum world is like trying to visualize and understand 4D objects. We can write equations and calculate volumes, but we cannot visualize the corner of a hypercube.
Kedaman: When you make statements like the following you lose me.The bolding is mine. You seem to have definitions in your mind which do not match any of my concepts. I find it hard to decide whether I am lost or merely confused.Quote:
I didn't come from, information does, randomness is defined as information that appear from nothing. And that is ODD, WEIRD, SUPERNATURAL.
BTW: You do not seem to believe in the existence of a universe external to yourself. At least that is how I interpret some of your posts.
Guv
Depending on what you mean, on how i interpret the meaning of your comment, i can asnwer you in paradoxal ways.
If I consider Objectiveness essential to existance, then my information is your external universe.
If I consider Subjectiveness essential to existance, then my information provides your external universe. In this case there is practical use of probabilistic interpretation, but to me, it is still unnessesary belief to consider it true.
True (not pseudo) Randomness to you is information to me, and Information is constant.
Kedaman
It is not clear to me how you are managing to dismiss SOS's other than by the assumption that nothing exists outside of yourself so therefore, it must be an illusion.Quote:
- State does not exist, but is evaluated.
Since there is no medium, no states are stored, my consciousness will evaluate the state based on current set of information. Therefore objectively speaking (about information) state is an illusion. That in turn means a system is an illusion as well as self organising systems.
You start by assuming it isn't there so, if your sences tell you it is, it must be an illusion.
What do you mean, "there is no medium"?
Allow me to illustrate what I mean:Quote:
I am confused, sometimes you state you act systematically based on input to produce output. When I ask you if you are passive, a man without choise, you disagree. Then again you say you can't produce anything "new". To me that means you cannot change enviroment either.
Consider a standard computer program that is setup to wait for user input and then respond in pre-set ways. Now consider a SOS. Every input it recevies is interpreted based on the information already in the system. The data comming in is organised by the data that's already there (and not by some external instructions that govern it's interpretation). The response of such a system will be determined by it's current state (which you say it does not have).
This is what I mean about not being a passive system. But, it is still fundamentally mechanistic in nature, deterministic in behaviour and consequentially does not create.
For starters, it needs to be probabalistic to have any choices. Each of the possibilities may be defined by a statistical probability that they would occur. Hence where te randomness comes in; A truly probabilistic system can only determine it's outcome in terms of probabilities and therefore the particular outcome that emerges is essentially random because there is no underlying pattern that would determine which outcome will occur.
Guv
I would be interested to hear what you think causes one particular possibility to occur over another at any particular time. For example, at any particular moment, an atom might or might not decay. We might define it's likelyhood by assigning probabilities to the outcomes but at the end of the day, one and only one outcome does occur.Quote:
All quantum world processes seem to be similarly probabilistic. Since the world of our senses is based on quantum world phenomena, it seems reasonable to believe that the universe in general is probabilistic rather than deterministic. I consider it silly to believe otherwise.
Indeed, if we fail to determine which actual outcome does occur, the two (or more) outcomes remain indistinguishable, we are left with this "weird", fuzzy state of affairs in which, whilst we know either one or the other must have occurred, we can carry on as if both had occurred.
As this is an "observable" phenomena of quantum mechanics, I wondered what your thoughts on this were.
Thanks for the QCD definition Guv, I hadn't heard that term before.
I have undergone a little formal study of particle physics so I know the basics of what you're talking about. Gluons aren't actually the same kind of building blocks as quarks, gluons are guage bosons, and are the particles of the strong force. I think you're thinking of leptons, which are the family of particles including electrons, muons, taus and their associated neutrinos.
Anyway it's been a couple of years since I studied this, so I may have forgotten some of it.
Simon:
Sounds like you're talking about Schroedinger's cat paradox?
Harry
Well, yes, along those lines.
I have read that something called "decoherance" takes place upon the act of distinguishing the possibilities (i.e. making an observation) but it doesn't relaly make sence to me, I must confess.
Well the thing with quantum randomness is that it doesn't make sense to anyone. Apparently, if it makes sense to you, you just haven't understood it properly.
So don't feel too bad about it ;)
There was me thinking you were going to explain it all for me. :)
So you are saying that the day I finally come to grips with it, I will have lost what little understanding I had in the first place?
How Ironic. ;)
Simon
I am starting to see why we don't understand each other.
Well now that I do understand what you mean, and why, I can say that we agree on all aspects, except that I don't see where you stand.
Your objective universe is my subjective. My objective universe is me and information. To me the latter causes the first. To you it doesn't matter, right?
Kedaman
It seems to me that you are unclear about which one causes the other. You are saying here that information causes you but elsewhere you have said that you create information.Quote:
Your objective universe is my subjective. My objective universe is me and information. To me the latter causes the first. To you it doesn't matter, right?
Both us us seem to accept that we are only capable of experiencing reality subjectively but we seem to draw different conclusions from that. Your conclusion is, because all we see is subjective (and therefore potentially inaccurate) you dismiss it as mere illusion.
I conclude that, because all we see is subjective, we must always have an element of doubt in our perception of the objective world.
Whilst I accept that we cannot ever comprehend the outside world objectively, you dismiss it's very existance. I don't see any reason to go that far. The fact that I receive information is enough evidence, for me, that something exists external myself. I cannot ever be sure of the exact nature of what is out there but I can be (nearly 100%) sure that there is an "out there".
You seem to err on the side of caution: Because you cannot be certain of anything external to yourself, it is better to dismiss it's very existance. You would use the information (that you believe you created) as if there were an external universe yet you refuse to commit to the belief of it's existance.
Ultimately, we arrive at very similar destinations. You come from a solopsist view point and I come from the other (what ever it is called). I believe in an external world whilst having to accept my innability to see it objectively. You do not believe in an external world yet you must continue to behave as if your "illusions" were real.
Who's to say which way is best?
Simon
I wanted to make in illustration based on my world view in two ways, because we agree with each other in some aspect, and not in another. I might be able to explain more if you first understand what i mean, and I thought if I illustrate it, you might get the idea better.
The lower part shows an objective view. It shows me, and it shows information being passed to my consciousness and also back into unconsciousness. The above part shows a subjective view. This is what I see, I see structures, patterns, systems, states, I see the same things as you see, I don't see information directly, I see data, I see properties being changed, I see results that seems probabilistic. The circle with 1/0 symbolises a random element. Also everything falls into a background, a medium to store state data. I can derive systems, I can suddenly interpret a system I haven't seen before, directly out of the background. Somtimes systems overlap each other sometimes they are inside each other, it depends how you see it.
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=568719
Well you missunderstood me, this is what I meant:Quote:
It seems to me that you are unclear about which one causes the other. You are saying here that information causes you but elsewhere you have said that you create information.
Your objective universe is my subjective. My objective universe is me and information. To me the latter(OBJECTIVE) causes the first(SUBJECTIVE) (TROUGH INTERPRETATION DONE BY YOU). To you it doesn't matter, right?
Anyways, do you see what I'm trying to explain now?
Kedaman
I think that, if I have thus far failed to understand your view of the mind and it's place in reality, then the diagrams you have shown me don't make it clearer.
This doesn't seem to make sense with my definition of information. I believe that information is what we perceive directly. Information represents the extrapolation of meaning from the external world.Quote:
I don't see information directly, I see data
To me, data is objective and meaningless. Information is subjective but meaningful. We turn data into information by a process of interpretation.
Our brains are self organised data. As data enters our brains, it is turned into information. The more data that enters our brain, the more information we have there, the more meaning we have derived from the external world and the more subjectively we view it.
As our brains have become more advanced (through the process of evolution), they have become better at turning data into information.
As I have (seemingly failed to) understood you, you have information floating around in your brain that did not come from external data (because there is no external data). Your inforamtion seems to float in and out of the "magic pit" that you call the unconsious. This information is subconsiously used to construct the illusion of an external reality.
If this is wrong, then I really can't see what you're trying to say. If anyone else can, could they please point out exactly where I'm going wrong?
Simon
Well, you keep misunderstanding me. So i'm trying to put up some definitions first.
Data is objective in subjective perspective and subjective in objective perspective. Information is objective in objective perspective while subjective in subjective perspective. Obviously you failed to understand me because you think I thought subjectively.Quote:
To me, data is objective and meaningless. Information is subjective but meaningful. We turn data into information by a process of interpretation.
To you data is objective no matter what, because you can't see think objectively like me. How paradoxal is that? You believe :)
Information is subjective and meaningfull, but does it exist other than to you? Do you think it's an illusion resulted from your interpretation?
Once again, what do you think the purpose of your consciousness is?