(July 28, 2019 at 2:19 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 10:53 am)comet Wrote: good stuff ... I get ya.  But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for.  I am only interested in how the universe works.  you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
 

And part of my point is that 'mechanism' is, in and of itself, a metaphysical position that has been shown to be wrong. Quantum mechanics has shown the mechanistic perspective to be wrong.

to me QM has done no such thing.  In fact, it shows that there is a mechanism because we can make predictions using it.    QM  shows that we do not understand the mechanism(s).  Not that there is none.  we made cells phones using QM so there is a "mechanism". I think Bell's theorem shows the universe may not know everything about the particle either.  That makes sense we think about it, but that doesn't mean there isn't mechanism.

(July 29, 2019 at 6:08 am)comet Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 2:19 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And part of my point is that 'mechanism' is, in and of itself, a metaphysical position that has been shown to be wrong. Quantum mechanics has shown the mechanistic perspective to be wrong.

to me QM has done no such thing.  In fact, it shows that there is a mechanism because we can make predictions using it.    QM  shows that we do not understand the mechanism(s).  Not that there is none.  we made cells phones using QM so there is a "mechanism". I think Bell's theorem shows the universe may not know everything about the particle either.  That makes sense we think about it, but that doesn't mean there isn't mechanism.

Let's drill down a b, then. What do you mean by the term 'mechanism'? In what sense does QM provide a mechanism?

What QM does is allows the calculation of probabilities. When macroscopic samples are being dealt with, those probabilities have a small enough spread (standard distribution) to allow very precise calculation of overall behavior.

For example, to be a mechanism, is it required that there be little particles bouncing off each other? Or is a collection of rules for calculating probabilities enough? The first is clearly excluded by QM and the second is exactly how QM describes things. Does a mechanism have to be deterministic? If so, are you assuming determinism is true in spite of the contrary evidence?

It seems to me that the fact that we can build cell phones shows that we *do* understand how things work (mechanism or not). I'm still not clear what difference there is between that and knowing 'what something is'.

As for Bell's inequalities (and related results), QM perfectly describes what is going on. There are correlations that travel at less than the speed of light. When a measurement happens, the correlation is revealed.

(July 29, 2019 at 7:55 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 6:08 am)comet Wrote: to me QM has done no such thing.  In fact, it shows that there is a mechanism because we can make predictions using it.    QM  shows that we do not understand the mechanism(s).  Not that there is none.  we made cells phones using QM so there is a "mechanism". I think Bell's theorem shows the universe may not know everything about the particle either.  That makes sense we think about it, but that doesn't mean there isn't mechanism.

Let's drill down a b, then. What do you mean by the term 'mechanism'? In what sense does QM provide a mechanism?

What QM does is allows the calculation of probabilities. When macroscopic samples are being dealt with, those probabilities have a small enough spread (standard distribution) to allow very precise calculation of overall behavior.

For example, to be a mechanism, is it required that there be little particles bouncing off each other? Or is a collection of rules for calculating probabilities enough? The first is clearly excluded by QM and the second is exactly how QM describes things. Does a mechanism have to be deterministic? If so, are you assuming determinism is true in spite of the contrary evidence?

It seems to me that the fact that we can build cell phones shows that we *do* understand how things work (mechanism or not). I'm still not clear what difference there is between that and knowing 'what something is'.

As for Bell's inequalities (and related results), QM perfectly describes what is going on. There are correlations that travel at less than the speed of light. When a measurement happens, the correlation is revealed.

I didn't say QM provides a mechanism.  I said, to me, it shows that there is a mechanism for space/time at it fundamental level.  If anything, QM shows that we do not know what the mechanism is.  which we do not.

you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there are no mechanisms.  I am saying that I think there are mechanisms.  All i am saying is that because we make predictions with QM that I think there is a mechanism to it.  we do not know what that mechanism is tho.

I don't agree with you about using QM and Gravity. Just because we can use it doesn't mean we know what it is. My wife has no idea 'what a car is", she only knows how to use it. the same thing goes for QM and gravity.

Lets clear that bit up first before we go to "something".  ok?

(July 29, 2019 at 3:00 pm)comet Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 7:55 am)polymath257 Wrote: Let's drill down a b, then. What do you mean by the term 'mechanism'? In what sense does QM provide a mechanism?

What QM does is allows the calculation of probabilities. When macroscopic samples are being dealt with, those probabilities have a small enough spread (standard distribution) to allow very precise calculation of overall behavior.

For example, to be a mechanism, is it required that there be little particles bouncing off each other? Or is a collection of rules for calculating probabilities enough? The first is clearly excluded by QM and the second is exactly how QM describes things. Does a mechanism have to be deterministic? If so, are you assuming determinism is true in spite of the contrary evidence?

It seems to me that the fact that we can build cell phones shows that we *do* understand how things work (mechanism or not). I'm still not clear what difference there is between that and knowing 'what something is'.

As for Bell's inequalities (and related results), QM perfectly describes what is going on. There are correlations that travel at less than the speed of light. When a measurement happens, the correlation is revealed.

I didn't say QM provides a mechanism.  I said, to me, it shows that there is a mechanism for space/time at it fundamental level.  If anything, QM shows that we do not know what the mechanism is.  which we do not.

you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there are no mechanisms.  I am saying that I think there are mechanisms.  All i am saying is that because we make predictions with QM that I think there is a mechanism to it.  we do not know what that mechanism is tho.

I don't agree with you about using QM and Gravity.  Just because we can use it doesn't mean we know what it is.  My wife has no idea 'what a car is", she only knows how to use it.  the same thing goes for QM and gravity.

Lets clear that bit up first before we go to "something".  ok?

What is the basis of your thinking there is a mechanism?  Other than some conviction that any behavior must have a mechanism?

Let's say, hypothetically, it is in principle correct that any behavior must have underlying mechanism, so there must be underlying mechanism beneath QM.   Would each component of that mechanism in turn requires yet more granular sub-mechanism to justify the behavior of the mechanism?    So do you postulate an infinite stack of mechanisms, like a building that has no foundation because its basement goes down infinitely deep?  Or do you accept at some level the stack stops, because the entire stack of mechanism can in fact be supported on some ultimate discernible foundation beneath which there are no further mechanisms?

(July 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 3:00 pm)comet Wrote: I didn't say QM provides a mechanism.  I said, to me, it shows that there is a mechanism for space/time at it fundamental level.  If anything, QM shows that we do not know what the mechanism is.  which we do not.

you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there are no mechanisms.  I am saying that I think there are mechanisms.  All i am saying is that because we make predictions with QM that I think there is a mechanism to it.  we do not know what that mechanism is tho.

I don't agree with you about using QM and Gravity.  Just because we can use it doesn't mean we know what it is.  My wife has no idea 'what a car is", she only knows how to use it.  the same thing goes for QM and gravity.

Lets clear that bit up first before we go to "something".  ok?

What is the basis of your thinking there is a mechanism?  Other than some conviction that any behavior must have a mechanism?

Let's say, hypothetically, it is in principle correct that any behavior must have underlying mechanism, so there must be underlying mechanism beneath QM.   Would each component of that mechanism in turn requires yet more granular sub-mechanism to justify the behavior of the mechanism?    So do you postulate an infinite stack of mechanisms, like a building that has no foundation because its basement goes down infinitely deep?  Or do you accept at some level the stack stops, because the entire stack of mechanism can in fact be supported on some ultimate discernible foundation beneath which there are no further mechanisms?

one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.  Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT. Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: What is the basis of your thinking there is a mechanism?  Other than some conviction that any behavior must have a mechanism?

Let's say, hypothetically, it is in principle correct that any behavior must have underlying mechanism, so there must be underlying mechanism beneath QM.   Would each component of that mechanism in turn requires yet more granular sub-mechanism to justify the behavior of the mechanism?    So do you postulate an infinite stack of mechanisms, like a building that has no foundation because its basement goes down infinitely deep?  Or do you accept at some level the stack stops, because the entire stack of mechanism can in fact be supported on some ultimate discernible foundation beneath which there are no further mechanisms?

one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

QM model seems accurate, if you base it on the probability math behind it. Doesn't mean there are competing models, one that springs to mind is the Pilot Wave model.

It's not like we haven't had accurate mathematical models, but which were based of misconceptions before, like the whole epicircle model of planetary motion.

As to which model is more accurate, IDK.

Lee Smolin had a 1-hour lecture about why QM is incomplete and a 15 minute Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: What is the basis of your thinking there is a mechanism?  Other than some conviction that any behavior must have a mechanism?

Let's say, hypothetically, it is in principle correct that any behavior must have underlying mechanism, so there must be underlying mechanism beneath QM.   Would each component of that mechanism in turn requires yet more granular sub-mechanism to justify the behavior of the mechanism?    So do you postulate an infinite stack of mechanisms, like a building that has no foundation because its basement goes down infinitely deep?  Or do you accept at some level the stack stops, because the entire stack of mechanism can in fact be supported on some ultimate discernible foundation beneath which there are no further mechanisms?

one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

It is not conviction.   It is being open to the most logically straight forward, albeit counterintuitive, explanation for a large body of evidence. 

Your basis of “we see mechanisms in everything else we see” is in fact wrong.    We do not see mechanism in everything.   More and more of what we see at quantum level exhibit evidence of defying even notion explanation as the effect of even some theoretical cause.    This is why I think the possibility has to be taken seriously that what we see is actually at, or at least very near, the most granular possible level of reality.   There is what reality is.  There is no deeper reason for it or smaller operation behind it.     However the property of this the most fundamental level of reality causes the emergence of the appearance of causation any less granular level.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Sal Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote: one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

QM model seems accurate, if you base it on the probability math behind it. Doesn't mean there are competing models, one that springs to mind is the Pilot Wave model.

It's not like we haven't had accurate mathematical models, but which were based of misconceptions before, like the whole epicircle model of planetary motion.

As to which model is more accurate, IDK.

Lee Smolin had a 1-hour lecture about why QM is incomplete and a 15 minute Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

This rubbish.  the notion that there may in fact be no deeper level of reality that creates the behavior modeled by math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well.   It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation.

(July 29, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Sal Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote: one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

QM model seems accurate, if you base it on the probability math behind it. Doesn't mean there are competing models, one that springs to mind is the Pilot Wave model.

It's not like we haven't had accurate mathematical models, but which were based of misconceptions before, like the whole epicircle model of planetary motion.

As to which model is more accurate, IDK.

Lee Smolin had a 1-hour lecture about why QM is incomplete and a 15 minute Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

this is true. for sure.  All i did was give reason as to why I lean toward QM having some mechanism.  lmao, Yes, the QM model is woefully incomplete.  Many people do not understand that. 

thanks for the link.

---

(July 30, 2019 at 12:49 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote: one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

It is not conviction.   It is being open to the most logically straight forward, albeit counterintuitive, explanation for a large body of evidence. 

Your basis of “we see mechanisms in everything else we see” is in fact wrong.    We do not see mechanism in everything.   More and more of what we see at quantum level exhibit evidence of defying even notion explanation as the effect of even some theoretical cause.    This is why I think the possibility has to be taken seriously that what we see is actually at, or at least very near, the most granular possible level of reality.   There is what reality is.  There is no deeper reason for it or smaller operation behind it.     However the property of this the most fundamental level of reality causes the emergence of the appearance of causation any less granular level.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Sal Wrote: QM model seems accurate, if you base it on the probability math behind it. Doesn't mean there are competing models, one that springs to mind is the Pilot Wave model.

It's not like we haven't had accurate mathematical models, but which were based of misconceptions before, like the whole epicircle model of planetary motion.

As to which model is more accurate, IDK.

Lee Smolin had a 1-hour lecture about why QM is incomplete and a 15 minute Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

This rubbish.  the notion that there may in fact be no deeper level of reality that creates the behavior modeled by math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well.   It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation.

well, you calling rubbish is the red flag.  but lets compare your claim to them side by side. Also my conviction is exactly the same as your conviction. I think it looks like there is a mechanism. when I see dta that doesn't suggest one I will change my opinion. I don't really care if there is a mechanism or not, I only think it looks like there is one. thats all.

The claims.  

mine: I think QM has a mechanism 
your claim: QM doesn't have a mechanism.

My evidence: due to the math model making predictions and (modified to remove absolutes) everything we understand has a mechanism I lean toward a possible mechanism over no mechanism.

Your evidence to why there is no mechanism: math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well. It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation. And You also stated that not everything we see has a mechanism you pointed to QM.

we can see that your statement(s) is very accurate and true.  we also see that it is not actually a piece of evidence that says there is no mechanism. let me explain:

a) You stated "QM defies any reasonable explanation." thats true. Its just not evidence for no mechanism.
b) The part about me sayig "everything we see has a mechanism" is wrong is ok. I change it to "the standard model is based on mechanisms so i think QM has a mechanism." be that as it may .. QM not having a mechanism is not evidence, thats what we are talking about and isn't evidence.

conclusion, until you offer evidence to why you don't think there is no mechanism I still lean (thats lean toward) QM having a mechanism.

Do you have any other piece of evidence to offer?

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: What is the basis of your thinking there is a mechanism?  Other than some conviction that any behavior must have a mechanism?

Let's say, hypothetically, it is in principle correct that any behavior must have underlying mechanism, so there must be underlying mechanism beneath QM.   Would each component of that mechanism in turn requires yet more granular sub-mechanism to justify the behavior of the mechanism?    So do you postulate an infinite stack of mechanisms, like a building that has no foundation because its basement goes down infinitely deep?  Or do you accept at some level the stack stops, because the entire stack of mechanism can in fact be supported on some ultimate discernible foundation beneath which there are no further mechanisms?

one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

Except that the results of QM specifically show that no mechanisms (hidden variables) can explain the observed phenomena.

Now, if that *isn't* what you mean by a 'mechanism', then please be more clear. What qualifies as a 'mechanism'? Can you give an example?

You say we see mechanisms all the time around us. Can you give an example and why you consider it to be a mechanism? And then tell whether you expect something similar to underly QM.

(July 30, 2019 at 7:25 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote: one thing at a time.  lmao at conviction.  like your conviction to no mechanism?  but ok, lets look.

I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.

1) QM has made correct predictions every time.   that means our math model seems to be correct.  Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s).  Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.

2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see.  Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.

Those two are good enough,  Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now.  So many others, much smarter than me, think so too.   Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT.  Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.

what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?

Except that the results of QM specifically show that no mechanisms (hidden variables) can explain the observed phenomena.

Now, if that *isn't* what you mean by a 'mechanism', then please be more clear. What qualifies as a 'mechanism'? Can you give an example?

You say we see mechanisms all the time around us. Can you give an example and why you consider it to be a mechanism? And then tell whether you expect something similar to underly QM.

"no hidden variables" and mechanism can be/may be two different things.  I need to see more about what space/time is.  For now, our models are only based on the outcomes that we see. 

 see "how small is it 05" for what I mean as a mechanism.

A simple example would be watching a city full of cars from some altitude where you can't see people.  maybe even speed the time scale up so they are moving at a speed where we can't see people.  A math model could describe how the cars are behaving very accurately. 

The missing mechanism is people living.   The "no hidden variable" would be 'sometimes they suddenly crash into each other for no explicable reason".   We can predict the number of crashes over time but we can't predict any one crash specifically.

Keep in mind, I only say "I think there is a mechanism.".  I am not certain. 

Can you offer one piece of evidence that there is none?  Just one please?