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 deci

"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

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 fai

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..

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

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 no

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

"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

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 + Af

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

<!-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.