Logic (Kebir Blue)

Laws of Nature
I mean always. I'm saying that: If we always knew all the variables in nature, then we could always accurately predict it.
However, we don't always know every variable or every principle. Let me explain it like this:

One person does not know how precisely how another thinks and can be surprised by another person's actions.
* Science can be surprised by events in nature.

However, if the first person knew every single value, principle, experience, thought, environmental factor, etc. and how these played into all the thoughts, words and deeds of the second (had omniscience in other words), this person would be able to accurately predict the person's actions and wouldn't be surprised.
* Science predicts nature by knowing what it is.

The other person does not have or need to have omniscience of themselves in order to make the decision; they simply make their decision on the basis of whatever they use to make it. If they like flipping coins, then this is how the decision is made. If they like following simple rules, then this is how the decision is made. If they like to follow complex, legalistic rules, then this is how the decision is made. The only thing that they cannot do is NOT make a decision they didn't make. If this person wanted to intentionally contradict themselves, this could be predicted.
* Nature doesn't work in a way it can't work.

This is how nature is predictable.

Applying this:
B + C = A
B + C + D = A + D
If D =/= 0, then A + D =/= A.
If D = 0, then A + D = A.
Imagine B + C as the circumstance dictating that rocks fall down, and A as the situation of rocks falling down.
If B and C are the only variables, then B + C will always result in A. The presence of additional variables that effect the final result will effect the final result.
Therefore:
If all variables required for rocks falling down are present (X), rocks will fall down. If all known variables are present (X-D) and some unknown variable is not present (D), rocks will not fall down.

This is the difference between that which is known to be required (Science) and that which is required (Nature). "Predictable" doesn't require accurate predictions, but does require that nature follow the laws of logic.

Repeated:
An event occurs because everything (known and unknown) that causes it to occur is present. If everything that causes an event to occur is present, then the event must happen.
X = A
If everything that causes an event to occur is present and the event does not happen, then the event is illogical.
X = not-A
If X = A and X = not-A, then A = not-A.

More to come! If you haven't figured out, I'm only an amateur so I'm still mostly working out this stuff!

I'll put this down so I don't forget:
If there is the presence of evidence for the material world, then that evidence may be true or false. If true, the material world does exist. If false, the material world may or may not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, so the spiritual (by spiritual I mean immaterial) world may or may not not exist. As there is no evidence that can be true or false, there is no "if" that allows the spiritual world the possibility of being certain.

The mental world is certain to exist. However, the nature of this world, whether material or spiritual, depends on the above.

Therefore, there are five possibilities:
The material world certainly exists.
The material world possibly exists.
The material world possibly does not exist.
The spiritual world possibly exists.
The spiritual world possibly does not exist.

Note that only one has indication that it CAN be certain which is dependent upon accurate perception.

"2. Science can be wrong, but nature is what it is."
Agreed.

"1. Nature functions in a predictable manner."
Disagreed.

There are three arguments, that I know of, against this.

A) Just because we have figured out a lot of regularities that we call laws, doesn't mean, logically, that everything that happens in nature follows regular "laws". You can't prove it, you have to take it as a postulate. You can legitimately say that you have to take it on faith.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

We are using mathematics as a hidden subtext of nature. We have to dig to a deeper level to uncover the mathematics that underpins nature. Theoretical physics is the only field that works like this. For example theoretical biology does not work like this. It is an act of faith in the idea that there is a law-like order in the universe. Faith, that the deeper we delve into nature the more we will see. Take the Large Hadron Collider as an example. We built it because we expect (via a form of faith) that there is a law-like order to the universe. --Physicist Paul Davies, June 17, 2010<!-/Quote-!>

B) Assume that nature does always follow strict laws. Then it might seem to follow that "if we always knew all the variables in nature, then we could always accurately predict it." The Laplacian view. However, at least some of the laws of nature are so sensitive to the initial conditions that in practice this is often just words. There's no way we'll ever get the precision needed to accurately predict the weather a year from now. In that sense, there is a large-scale randomness to nature...identical initial conditions (as far as we can tell) but different results. This is chaos theory, btw.

C) You might say that in principle we could always accurately predict things that happen in nature, (assuming there are laws for everything), even if in practice we don't know all the laws and we can't measure things with infinite precision. And you did say that. But quantum physics tells us that on the smallest level there is randomness. The same exact initial conditions can produce different results. The laws are probabilistic, not deterministic. It's not due to our lack of knowledge; experiments show that it's due to how nature actually operates.

Quantum theory tells us that there is uncertainty, not randomness.

Uncertainty, yes, but also randomness.

A radioactive nucleus wait for millions of years, doing nothing, then one morning decides it's a good time to decay. Why at that moment, and not at some other moment? Randomness. We couldn't predict the moment, regardless of issues of uncertainty.

A) You can prove it though. If the existence of laws could not be proven or disproven, then there would be no need to look further. This quote is being misinterpreted. If I told you that I believe that you'll find a good car for under $10K because I've seen listings for cars under $10K that have been inspected and have personally purchased a car under $10K and it's working fine, is this faith? This is a rational assumption based upon evidence. Is it conceivable that you will not find a good car under $10K? Yes. Can I be proven correct? Yes. Can I be proven wrong? Yes. If I said that you can find a good car under $10K if you pray to god, could I prove that there was any correlation between the quality of the car and the prayer? No. If the car was good, could I prove that God answered my prayer or if the prayer functioned as a placebo improving my outlook in a manner that lead to me finding a good car or if it was dumb luck? THIS is faith. Believing something that cannot be proven, not making assumptions based upon evidence that can be proven or disproven. You are attempting to categorize two separate phenomena under the same word. Calling a duck a rabbit doesn't turn the duck into a rabbit.

B) Chaos theory would point toward the opposite of randomness (if that opposite is merely non-randomness). It isn't identical initial conditions that lead to different results, but rather, tiny differences in initial conditions. This isn't randomness in the slightest and would further the idea that nothing is random. It would appear that you're ignoring that there is IMMENSE importance in very subtle differences between two very similar things.

C) Once again, uncertainty does not equal the same thing as randomness. Probabilistic laws are still laws (see coin-flipping reference in previous post). Randomness implies that there are no laws whatsoever. The only problem with my statement comes when there are no laws whatsoever.

Last statement: Source?

You keep saying that you can prove that everything that happens in nature follows regular laws, yet you keep avoiding doing so.

'Randomness implies that there are no laws whatsoever. The only problem with my statement comes when there are no laws whatsoever.'

The meaning of life is the contradiction.

Or should I say the 'logic' of life is a contradiction?

The only thing that isn't a contradiction is 'faith'.

But you only have 'faith' when you have lost the meaning of life?............. Oh yea........life's a contradiction

@Jojo
Tell me. Do you accept the three rules of logic and the principle of cause and effect? If you do, then you must see that nature could ONLY be predictable. Why should things happen without causes, and why shouldn't cause and effect sequences be self-identical and non-contradictory?

If nature is always follow these ideas, it will always be predictable. If nature does not follow them, it will not be predictable.

It's this simple. I'm not avoiding anything... I'm attempting to demonstrate that your evidence does not disprove the assumption of predictability, but rather lend themselves to this assumption... if you're ignoring what I'm typing here, why should I bother to continue? If I'm not explaining myself well, point out where my argument is weak rather than make blanket accusations.

@nix001
Profundity favors substance. First, if you are stating that the meaning of life is a contradiction... you will need to identify the true meaning of life and point out where it is contradictory. Second, the same applies for 'logic' of life... you will need to identify what you mean by this and point out where it is contradictory... or explain how it is the same thing as the meaning of life. Third, you will need to explain what aspect of faith makes it not a contradiction in relation to everything else. Fourth, you will need to explain how the meaning of life must be lost in order to have faith... or you will need to explain why it is not possible for life to have meaning with faith. Fifth, you will need to explain how contradictions are possibly for things that are true... unless you mean to imply that life itself does not happen.

Hey, Scarlet, if someone keeps asking the same question, maybe you haven't been responding to it, and maybe it's not so simple. I've been pretty patient this whole time, but I'm losing patience for you accusing me of ignoring and mischaracterizing what you write. Try practicing what you preach.

Your proof: I'll accept the three rules of logic, as long as you accept the need for precision in language.

You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by the principle of cause and effect. And I'll tell you now that I probably won't agree with it, and that this is the weak point in your argument, so don't just slough it off.

All effects have a cause. For example, I let go of the napkin (cause). The napkin falls (effect).

Something cannot be it's own cause. The napkin does not fall because the napkin fell.

The cause must precede the effect. The napkin cannot fall before I let go of it (assuming for sake of argument that my release of the napkin is the sole cause that would lead to the effect).

The cause must be related to the effect. The napkin will not fall because the temperature on Mars went up 3 degrees.

There are sufficient, contributory, and necessary causes. My release of the napkin will always result in the napkin falling (necessary). The 10 degree rise in temperature in the room may cause the release of the napkin, but another cause (such as the desire to turn up the A/C) may result in the release of the napkin (sufficient). If the absence of desire to turn up the A/C still results in the release of the napkin, this would be a contributory cause because altering this cause does not change the effect.

A cause may be probabilistic. My involuntary release of the napkin will become more likely on a windy day, but will not always result in the release of the napkin on a windy day.

Cause-and-effect chains may have intermediary cause/effects. The temperature of the room rises. The napkin falls. In between, the desire to reduce the temperature of the room is caused by the increased temperature and, in turn, causes the release of the napkin (which has a sufficient cause in the belief that I need to release the napkin in order to turn up the A/C).

I hope I'm not missing anything... anyway, which do you disagree with?

I suggest you use your sleeve not a napkin.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Uncertainty, yes, but also randomness.

A radioactive nucleus wait for millions of years, doing nothing, then one morning decides it's a good time to decay. Why at that moment, and not at some other moment? Randomness. We couldn't predict the moment, regardless of issues of uncertainty.<!-/Quote-!>

That's something of a misinterpretation.

True, we cannot predict accurately the time at which any given nucleon will decay. However, nucleons do decay, and in a predictable manner. The half-life - as you will no doubt be aware - of any given unstable nucleus is constant to a very specific degree, give or take an inherent uncertainty in the process.

Were the decay process truly random for any nucleon, the values measured for the half-life of the nucleus as a whole would not follow such a pattern. Indeed, taken as a whole, decay of the nucleus is not random at all. It is, however, possible to erroneously interpret the nature of individual nucleons by viewing their decay in isolation, and by not understanding the nature of the uncertainty inherent within the system as a whole.

Ultimate logic:

Reading gains knowledge
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Corruption is crime
Crime doesn't pay
A penny not earned is a penny lost
If you read, you'll go broke

You have to spend money to make money
I spent money but did not make money
Therefore, I did not spend money.

There are a 1000 planets in the infinite universe that are inhabited.
The odds of finding an inhabited planet in the universe is 1000 to infinite, or zero.
There are no inhabited planets in the universe.

The NRA supports the right to bear arms.
Arms can be nuclear arms.
The NRA supports private ownership and bearing of nuclear weapons.

According to evolution, man evolved from primates.
There are still primates.
Consequently, evolution is not true.

And that is why I never read or gain knowledge through any other means, spend money on everything wether or not it seems profitable, denounce the SETI and Darwinism, own a nuclear weapon, and have joined the Holy Organization of the Almighty Moe.

"anyway, which do you disagree with?"
First, third, fourth, and sixth statements. I'm not really clear on what you mean in the fifth and seventh statements, so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree.

But that second one, I'm good with that

You're not really going where I expected you to go. I'd have figured gravity would be in there someplace, in your napkin examples.

Probably the important one is the first one. What do you mean, "all effects have causes"? I'd call that a tautology--true by definition, but no content. Are you saying all events, all actions, everything that happens, has a cause? Or just that effects, i.e. things that have causes, have causes.?

@Rita: Sure, the half-life of a large sample is a reliable value that can be precisely measured. And the behavior of an individual nucleon can be described statistically. But I don't see why we can't say it decays at random. As far as I know, it's not as though there's some little roulette wheel hidden in the background that's following strict rules and mechanically determining when it's going to pop.

Surely anything that can be observed to happen or proven to be possible of happening at least once can be assigned a probability of happening, no matter how small a probability, (It can be shown mathematically that a napkin will or has deflected a bullet or a person may walk through a six foot thick concrete wall), hence, (unless this discussion is more about definition of 'random' and 'prediction'), there is no such phenomenon as 'randomness'. I would invite you to provide an example of true randomness.

Encarta Concise English Dictionary (Bloomsbury 2001): Random - Without a pattern, done, chosen or occurring without a specific pattern, plan, or connection.

Done or chosen infers an intent by some person or intelligence, specific pattern infers a system as defined by our interpretation of 'things' we see happen. So to be random, an event would have to unintended and not obeying our currently understood laws of physics, or, in other words, in a philosophical and abstract realm.

Not sure what you both mean by random. Coin toss, throw of dice...why aren't those random?

I suppose they are not random because given a certain number of times performing the action the results are predictable, plus physics can explain why the dice or coin result it is what it is. It isn't random that the coin landed on heads, it is due to the force at which it was thrown, wind resistance, rigidity of the surface it lands on, the angle it landed at, etc.

Haven't been involved in the conversation, just reading and thought that was one I could respond to adequately.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

What do you mean, "all effects have causes"? I'd call that a tautology--true by definition, but no content. Are you saying all events, all actions, everything that happens, has a cause? Or just that effects, i.e. things that have causes, have causes.?<!-/Quote-!>

I mean everything that happens has a cause.

The essence of the fifth statement is that not all causes are equal, as not all contribute equally to an effect. Single factors don't always determine an action. You wouldn't buy every nice suit you saw. The "niceness" of a suit does not solely determine whether or not you buy it. Likewise, you wouldn't buy every suit you could afford. The "affordability" of the suit does not solely determine whether or not you buy a suit. Now, assume you see a VERY nice suit. Then you consider whether you can afford it or not. Niceness + Affordability will have the effect of you buying the suit. Both are necessary. However, you might also consider that you wish to impress someone... this still factors into your decision, but alone is insufficient to produce the effect of the purchase, and isn't necessary to the decision to purchase because after all, you might just like wearing nice suits with no intention of impressing anyone.

The essence of the seventh statement is that not all cause and effect sequences that are true will appear true at first. In the spirit of my previous examples, I release a napkin. The napkin falls. Gravity would an intermediary cause/effect. When I release the napkin, I subject it to gravity. When gravity is subjected upon the napkin, the napkin falls. If I were to release the napkin without gravity (or any force) acting upon it, nothing would happen. In the latter, the intermediary cause/effect makes the primary cause responsible for the effect. The absence of this intermediary cause would lead to no effect.

Please give evidence of the following:
Effects without causes.
Effects preceding causes.
Effects unrelated to causes.

As far as probabilistic causes, the burden of proof is on myself. Simply put, a coin flip is an example probabilistic cause. I flip the coin. The coin may either land on heads or tails, with 50% chance of each (assuming it's a normal, balanced coin). There is a probability that I will get 10 heads in a row. However, the odds are slim '0.5^10'. The larger the sample size the more the effect will conform and adequately describe the probability. However, I must flip the coin before I get heads or tails. Flipping the coin will not ALWAYS yield heads, as it will not ALWAYS yield tails. It will, however, ALWAYS yield either heads or tails in predictable probabilities. Just because the cause has two possible effects does not mean these are "random" or "unpredictable".

The case of individual particles versus large samples is a testament to probabilistic causes... whatever causes the particles to decay does so in a documented pattern. Over one half-life, there is a 50% chance the particle will decay. Just as over the next half-life. It may survive several half-life cycles, but the 50% odds of decay each half life remain true. The particle cannot be considered in isolation of other particles because you intentionally miss the larger "law" that is occurring and determining whether or not the particle decays or does not.

Hypothetically, there may be a "true random", but this has not been discovered yet in reality. When the question is whether or not nature is predictable, reality is all that matters.

And, take for example the throwing of a ball, It is a simple matter nowadays to exactly predict the final position (state) of the ball given knowledge of the initial conditions, (mass, force applied, angles, etc). Likewise it is possible, though more complicated, to state whether a coin will land heads or tails, given sufficient knowledge of initial conditions. Now we move on to more complex systems like, say, the weather. theoretically, it would be possible to know all initial conditions and so exactly predict the outcome, (the weather in Dallas at 3:29pm Tuesday)
but we simply do not have the computing power as of yet.
Then comes a stickier situation, at the sub-microscopic (quantum) scale, the uncertainty principle tells us that we can can NEVER know the initial conditions of a particle with 100% accuracy, the very act of observing the particle effects its condition, know its momentum at the expense of knowing its position etc. Far greater minds than mine debate this issue with no resolution as of yet, but looking at history, everyone thought Einstien had cracked it beyond doubt, only for some of his reasoning to be found to be flawed down the line. I personally believe the Uncertainty principle will go the same way too (If only it would be me who disproved it )

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Monday, July 12, 2010 - 05:53 am Click here to edit this post @Rita: Sure, the half-life of a large sample is a reliable value that can be precisely measured. And the behavior of an individual nucleon can be described statistically. But I don't see why we can't say it decays at random. As far as I know, it's not as though there's some little roulette wheel hidden in the background that's following strict rules and mechanically determining when it's going to pop.<!-/Quote-!>

Because the decay isn't a strictly random phenomenon, as detailed above.