Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Determination

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

OK.

So subatomic particles can spontaneously zap from matter to energy and back, whenever, but macroscopic objects could only do that once in a blue moon because of the sheer quantity of such actions.

But if macroscopic matter could spontaneously pop itself into energy, at any random moment (no matter how infrequent), then in what sense was Hume wrong when he said that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO KNOW whether food will nourish us tomorrow?

 

Again you make a ridiculous claim... "IF macroscopic matter could".... yeah if black was white... if nothing was something if 2 equalled 7 ... if what I said had anything to with such a ridiculous claim.

 

Macroscopic matter CANNOT spontaneously pop "itself" into energy.   Matter and antimatter if brought together CAN do so.  Hamburgers are not made of matter and antimatter.  Why not volunteer to be bombarded with a few kilograms of positrons ... argue till you are blue in the face that matter and antimatter do not annihilate into radiation.... it wont save you.  Trust me. 

 

Quite simply put you have taken a premise and then applied the most illogical irrational leap of non-cognition and then point to the result shouting "SEE the premise must be false!"  Step back and look at what you are doing. 

 

 

 

Experiment has shown that certain events of causation (interactions) have multiple specific possible outcomes which are in accordance with the nature of the identities prior to the event. 

 

Please address my point about hierarchy and no crazy illogical leaps please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your grasp of either logic or language is eluding you. To say the behaviour of A is not determined by anything is to say that nothing can affect it .. and/or equally to say what it does is completely arbitrary.

I take it that you object to the implied absolute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macroscopic matter CANNOT spontaneously pop "itself" into energy.

OK. I was under the impression that microscopic matter could. Can it?

If not then I'm sorry for the wild tangent. If so then how is it impossible for lots of microscopic matter to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I was under the impression that microscopic matter could. Can it?

If not then I'm sorry for the wild tangent. If so then how is it impossible for lots of microscopic matter to do so?

 

Microscopic matter (protons, electrons) cannot pop itself into energy.

 

An electron has charge, lepton number, etc. which according to all observation must be conserved by any system, including a system of a single particle.  Thus the electron cannot pop itself into energy.  something similar goes for the proton.  As a matter of fact so many conservation laws must be obeyed, energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. that pretty well every single ridiculous claim about possibility in QM is simply not possible.

 

You are probably reacting to claims by pseudoscientists or "science journalists" which essentially says literally anything is possible because of QM probability.  This is wrong and does not follow from the science, and moreover it invokes an incorrect use of the term "possible".

 

 

 

Let's get back to the discussion regarding the nature of indivisible (foundational) causation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that you object to the implied absolute?

 

There is nothing wrong with valid absolutes.  This is not what we are dealing with here.

 

There is a distinction between something which is affected by everything, something which is affected by only some things and in certain ways, and something which is affected by nothing.  You spoke of a photon whose behaviour is determined i.e. affected by, absolutely nothing, such is a phantom, a fiction, something you have dreamt up, and moreover it would have no interaction with the universe and would thereby be impossible to detect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with valid absolutes.  This is not what we are dealing with here.

 

There is a distinction between something which is affected by everything, something which is affected by only some things and in certain ways, and something which is affected by nothing.

But there's no such thing as "affected by only some things", so in reality that means it is "affected by nothing" because some aspects are operating according to some set of rules that doesn't apply to anything else in reality, i.e some realm that we can never comprehend. This contradicts some very basic ideas in logic, unless we want multi-value logic, indeterminism in all causal actions, or a world of ideas distinct from observation. It just doesn't fit with the law of identity. In Objectivism especially, all knowledge is connected to all knowledge, implying that everything is affected everything to some extent. In Objectivism Through Induction, Peikoff discusses at length by what he means by this thought - and it's a point about knowledge, not only causal chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microscopic matter (protons, electrons) cannot pop itself into energy.

 

An electron has charge, lepton number, etc. which according to all observation must be conserved by any system, including a system of a single particle.  Thus the electron cannot pop itself into energy.  something similar goes for the proton.  As a matter of fact so many conservation laws must be obeyed, energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. that pretty well every single ridiculous claim about possibility in QM is simply not possible.

 

You are probably reacting to claims by pseudoscientists or "science journalists" which essentially says literally anything is possible because of QM probability.  This is wrong and does not follow from the science, and moreover it invokes an incorrect use of the term "possible".

 

 

 

Let's get back to the discussion regarding the nature of indivisible (foundational) causation...

Einstein's formulation for Special Relativity, E=MC^2 means that energy (L side) can be converted in to matter (R side). and vice-versa.

 

This is not 'QM probability' or 'pseudoscience'. Rather, it's a working assumption of Astrophysics that deal with pre-big- bang vacuum states. On a more prosaic level, it gives the correct sequence of the breakdown/emission of U-238 into U-235, per L.Meitner. 

 

The foundational working level of all physics is that of the quantum, or Planck numbers. Although theoretically convertible per SR into mass, in terms of de Broglies' formulation, all material cause can be reduced to the probabilistic outcome of the wave function. It's not used in real-world scenarios because it's far too awkward. 

 

Yet throwing enough basketballs at a wall and having one pass through corresponds exactly to the scenario of Krauss that, given enough photons in a vacuum state of nothingness, one will jump to an energy level sufficient to create a big bang, hence a universe...out of nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's no such thing as "affected by only some things", so in reality that means it is "affected by nothing" because some aspects are operating according to some set of rules that doesn't apply to anything else in reality, i.e some realm that we can never comprehend. This contradicts some very basic ideas in logic, unless we want multi-value logic, indeterminism in all causal actions, or a world of ideas distinct from observation. It just doesn't fit with the law of identity. In Objectivism especially, all knowledge is connected to all knowledge, implying that everything is affected everything to some extent. In Objectivism Through Induction, Peikoff discusses at length by what he means by this thought - and it's a point about knowledge, not only causal chains.

 

You want to claim every thing is affected by every other thing (and by implication) everywhere and at all times... go ahead.

 

If you think there is any rational reaction to such a claim... think again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not?

 

We have our own conversation HD...

 

Why not what?  Why NOT claim that the present electric charge of the 1047th axon in the left side of my occipital lobe is affected by the angular momentum of the third plasma discharge in the distal hemisphere of "the second star to the right" in the first of the Antennae Galaxies?

 

 

As LP would love to say sarcastically, it's POSSIBLE...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein's formulation for Special Relativity, E=MC^2 means that energy (L side) can be converted in to matter (R side). and vice-versa.

 

This is not 'QM probability' or 'pseudoscience'. Rather, it's a working assumption of Astrophysics that deal with pre-big- bang vacuum states. On a more prosaic level, it gives the correct sequence of the breakdown/emission of U-238 into U-235, per L.Meitner. 

 

The foundational working level of all physics is that of the quantum, or Planck numbers. Although theoretically convertible per SR into mass, in terms of de Broglies' formulation, all material cause can be reduced to the probabilistic outcome of the wave function. It's not used in real-world scenarios because it's far too awkward. 

 

Yet throwing enough basketballs at a wall and having one pass through corresponds exactly to the scenario of Krauss that, given enough photons in a vacuum state of nothingness, one will jump to an energy level sufficient to create a big bang, hence a universe...out of nothing.

 

I seriously cannot tell if you are advocating Krauss or admonishing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are the actual multi-valued behaviors?

 

I'm speaking more about outcomes.  There is a context, there is a situation where an interaction occurs, the possible outcomes are more than one.  This is what I mean by multi-valued causation.  I do not propose there are "causes" inside causation which make it multivalued.  I am looking at the smallest causal unit (not drawing a big black box around a complex system) and what can come out of it.

 

In any case... let's start our discussion anew in another thread starting sometime in the next few days.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a supporting point to my objections. . . ?

 

If you thought A implied "something stupid"... and you observe I am also discrediting claims to "something stupid" ... well you cant say anything more about it.  why?  Because the something stupid isn't actually implied by A... I am not agreeing with your objections to A only your rejection of the something stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously cannot tell if you are advocating Krauss or admonishing him.

In my #33, i'm saying that you're seriously wrong in stating that the conversion of energy to mass,or vice versa, is pseudo-science. 

 

Re Krauss, it's not a question of 'advocating' but rather 'accepting' as science, albeit cutting edge as it might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to claim every thing is affected by every other thing (and by implication) everywhere and at all times... go ahead.

 

If you think there is any rational reaction to such a claim... think again.

Listen to OTI then get back to me. Peikoff makes the point in other lectures, too. It's not a minor point, it's a big part of the Objectivism idea of knowledge, that nothing is ever separate when it comes to all we know. He likens it to a claim made by Hegel that to know anything you must know everything, but minus the denial of certainty. The way for all knowledge to be connected is that all things are connected in some manner. I don't mean "connected" in a string theory way, I mean that forming any knowledge is dependent on its relation to all other knowledge, making entities themselves conceptualized as part of the same reality. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying - I only made a counter-claim that you'd require multi-value logic to say that some concepts are immune to implications to some of your knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my #33, i'm saying that you're seriously wrong in stating that the conversion of energy to mass,or vice versa, is pseudo-science. 

 

Re Krauss, it's not a question of 'advocating' but rather 'accepting' as science, albeit cutting edge as it might be.

 

You seriously misunderstood my post.  Read closely before claiming someone is seriously wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to OTI then get back to me. Peikoff makes the point in other lectures, too. It's not a minor point, it's a big part of the Objectivism idea of knowledge, that nothing is ever separate when it comes to all we know. He likens it to a claim made by Hegel that to know anything you must know everything, but minus the denial of certainty. The way for all knowledge to be connected is that all things are connected in some manner. I don't mean "connected" in a string theory way, I mean that forming any knowledge is dependent on its relation to all other knowledge, making entities themselves conceptualized as part of the same reality. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying - I only made a counter-claim that you'd require multi-value logic to say that some concepts are immune to implications to some of your knowledge.

 

Then we are speaking way past each other.  I absolutely agree that knowledge is a unity.  Compartmentalization is a vice.  Integration is the goal.  You have to be careful about making the proper conclusions/integrations.... drawing the proper deductive and inductive inferences from premises/evidence.  You particular conclusions given the same premises ... what you say they MUST imply...THAT is likely where we disagree.

 

You may not have been speaking of "connected" the way we were... but you interjected ... and HD was talking about a photon.  The discussion was metaphysics.  the way the universe works.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously misunderstood my post.  Read closely before claiming someone is seriously wrong.

You wrote:

Microscopic matter (protons, electrons) cannot pop itself into energy.

 

First, electrons and protons (neutrons?) are not 'microscopic' because the word means 'observable with a microscope'. 

 

Meitner, working with Einstein's formulation for Special Relativity, derived the breakdown chain of U-238 to U235 by demonstrating that the created energy is a result of a loss of mass. Otherwise, the equation doesn't work.

 

This is precisely the basis of what we now call 'nuclear energy'. 

 

As far as 'popping itself' into any observable state, yes, arguably, electrons, protons and neutrons, having no volition of their own, require a catalyst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not have been speaking of "connected" the way we were... but you interjected ... and HD was talking about a photon.  The discussion was metaphysics.  the way the universe works.

Yes, the universe works in such a way that nothing is immune or unaffected by something in reality. Clearly my making this post doesn't make Jupiter's orbit wobble nor does it cause grass to grow faster, but that's only a conceptual distinction - all causality alters the status of reality. To say my posting doesn't alter Jupiter's orbit is only to say the impact is so minimal that for most domains of knowledge, it doesn't matter. How, then, can some entity or object be unaffected by something in reality? The domain here is metaphysics, so I am talking about this connection being how all knowledge is able to be integrated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what WAY is "the present electric charge of the 1047th axon in the left side of YOUR occipital lobe affected by the angular momentum of the third plasma discharge in the distal hemisphere of "the second star to the right" in the first of the Antennae Galaxies?"  Are you saying "yes.. but its minimal"?  HOW?  is it the amount of charge? the charge's momentum? or is it perhaps the particular distribution of charge in space within your axon that is affected by the angular momentum?

 

Please keep in mind that the Antennae Galaxies are 45 million light away.  That according to present theories no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.  Also as far as I know there is no evidence whatever to suppose there is an entangled quantum state (assuming you accept the existence of such things) linking the electrons in your 1047th axon to something in the plasma discharge, so action at a distance in the form of a correlated collapse of an entangled state is not possible.  The nearest thing to a connection I can see is that 22.5 million years from now at a point equidistant between your head and the discharge will be a theoretical place where information could arrive at the same time and interact... although there is no evidence that such information will actually travel to that point in space time or how it could do so.  But then even if such an interaction could occur such would not be an example of something affecting the other... after all after 22.5 million years your electron and occipital lobe have moved on and disintegrated respectively as likely the plasma discharge also.. plus arguably another 22.5 million years would have to pass for the information of one to reach the other. 

 

Now according to Objectivism.. when you lack any evidence .. ANY single bit of positive evidence showing how one could affect the other... or THAT one affects the other... can you please tell me how you can say it's POSSIBLE one affects the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote:

Microscopic matter (protons, electrons) cannot pop itself into energy.

 

First, electrons and protons (neutrons?) are not 'microscopic' because the word means 'observable with a microscope'. 

 

Meitner, working with Einstein's formulation for Special Relativity, derived the breakdown chain of U-238 to U235 by demonstrating that the created energy is a result of a loss of mass. Otherwise, the equation doesn't work.

 

This is precisely the basis of what we now call 'nuclear energy'. 

 

As far as 'popping itself' into any observable state, yes, arguably, electrons, protons and neutrons, having no volition of their own, require a catalyst.

 

Subatomic is the better label for protons and electrons. I was trying to use a broad term to contrast with macroscopic.

 

HD's use of the word "pop" implies something "popping" out of existence spontaneously.  I was merely pointing out to HD that matter and single electrons cannot simply pop out of existence and into energy (absent the required antimatter with which to annihilate itself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein's formulation for Special Relativity, E=MC^2 means that energy (L side) can be converted in to matter (R side). and vice-versa.

 

This is not 'QM probability' or 'pseudoscience'. Rather, it's a working assumption of Astrophysics that deal with pre-big- bang vacuum states. On a more prosaic level, it gives the correct sequence of the breakdown/emission of U-238 into U-235, per L.Meitner. 

 

The foundational working level of all physics is that of the quantum, or Planck numbers. Although theoretically convertible per SR into mass, in terms of de Broglies' formulation, all material cause can be reduced to the probabilistic outcome of the wave function. It's not used in real-world scenarios because it's far too awkward. 

 

Yet throwing enough basketballs at a wall and having one pass through corresponds exactly to the scenario of Krauss that, given enough photons in a vacuum state of nothingness, one will jump to an energy level sufficient to create a big bang, hence a universe...out of nothing.

 

Journalists who refer to "throwing enough basketballs at a wall and having one pass through" are relying on pseudoscience.

 

What could "pass through" walls certainly is not a normal basketball.  If you imagine a fictional body having the mass of a basketball and the size of a basketball but with near infinite forces holding it together, you could also imagine a fictional barrier having the same mass and width of a wall also with near infinite forces holding it together, then you could think you could reasonably predict the probability of tunnelling by the ball given the speed of impact.  Now at some finite speed you have to ask, as a dynamic system if say 2 micrometers of the ball were to tunnel through an outer part of the wall what kinds of forces are exerted upon the part of the ball still outside the wall.  How does the rate of change of the area not yet successfully tunneled into the potential barrier affect the way the various parts of the ball interact?  Do the almost infinite forces holding the bits of ball together become bunched up and form other potential barriers.. do bits of the ball start to tunnel through those... if they are lower barriers than the potential barriers in the wall do parts of the ball go backward... does part of the ball start to break? if the ball's internal potential barriers are higher than the wall does the wall start to break or do parts of the wall tunnel through the ball also?   Are we needing near infinite speeds AND near infinite forces for this to work?  Why would a complex system behave in such a complex manner?

 

If only the fictitious ball were a single particle rather than a complex arrangement of bits separately held together by the same forces forming the wall... and if only the wall were just a potential barrier rather than a complex arrangement of matter and forces holding it together...

 

I suppose if we imagine the basketball IS a single particle and the wall really IS only a force field, a potential barrier then Eureka! Basketballs could tunnel through walls.... even if not very often.... (depends on the momentum and the height of the potential barrier)

 

Well now as you see both the infinitely held together ball and wall and the single particle ball and force field are a LITTLE unrealistic as equivalents to a real basketball and wall.  Real basketballs are held together with some covalent bonding and also the complex polymer entanglements of the rubber molecules.  Whatever walls are made of.. they likely have much stronger bonds.  Now imagine that the first electron of the first atom on the outer surface of the ball, tunnels into and beyond an electron orbital of the outermost atom of the wall... its a great start... what then?  Will the electron be captured by the wall, will the next electron make it.. will some of the bonds start to break... will parts of the ball tunnel through other parts of the ball going backward?... will bunched up electrons that tunnel in weird ways or fail to tunnel, form EM barriers taller than those of the wall...

 

The pseudoscientist will sweep all of these considerations away with a dismissive wave of his incredulous arm... "what? you expect me to look at the details?  you don't have to do science to know the implications of it... all you need is your imagination and your intuition"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can you please tell me how you can say it's POSSIBLE one affects the other?

Isn't that the Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM; that the trajectory of a single particle is ultimately influenced by the simultaneous trajectories of every other particle in the universe (which is what makes them so quirky)?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...