[
So you still maintain that the many world hypothesis is science fiction but in the same time and with your own words you present the hypothesis as controversial.
Controversy between who? street trash bin cleaners? taxi drivers?
The controversy goes on between scientists,so let's give them a litlle respect and let's not consider apriory their debate as science fiction.
Further you mention the consensus among scientists.
Fortunately science is not a democracy, I would say quite contrary.
Would science have been a democracy we would have science by now still before Copernicus ,Galileo,Newton ,Einstein or Hawking,to mention only the most proeminent of not consensual scientists.
I for my self have no sufficient knowledge in physics so as to take part in this controversy.The problem is interesting fom a general point of view on the world but has very little to do to with the ordinary world.
I brought up the issue only in connection with Hawking whom I consider as one of our greatest scientist and what was interesting for me was that I found in his book " A brief history of time" an idea which fitted my opinion on the limits of determinism.
He writes "..we could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being,who could observe the current state of the universe without disturbing it.Howewer ,such models of the universe are not of much interest to us ordinary mortals.It seems better to employ the principle of economy known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed",
I know that you don't agree with this idea but there are a lot of persons who do.
The Occam's razor principle ( who was he anyway?)brings us down from the high Olympus of philosophy to the practical world surrounding us.Dawkins mentions also in his book TGD the principle of economy in connection with evolution of life.
So what I am taking about is that most ,if not all of physical events in our ordinary world can be seen as a dual phenomenon of predictability and chance ,or causal and randomness,(there are a lot of parallel names) which can be defined with this general expression of determinism and indeterminism.
So economic is up to you a totaly chaotic system?
You surely have heard about Adam Smith John Mill Stuart,Karl Marx,Keynes,Milton Friedman,just to mention only a few of famous economists who have cast economy in well known laws.Where they all idiots?
Sure economy is partially chaotic,say indeterministic, with the accent of the word partiallybecause it is in the same time governed by laws ,say determinisic ones.
Weather forecast is a stringent exemple of the same duality.
I come back to the second principle of thermodynamics.
A byproduct to it is that the temperature of the athmosphere is fundamentally chaotic.The heat as we know is dispersed by radiation convection and conduction.The atmosphere is heated by the sun by radiation and from below from the earth and oceans by radiation convection and conduction.Applying the Occams razor principle we must admit that the temperature of the athmosphere is unpredicable.Now a sudden temprature rise is able some times to trigger a chain reaction not unlike the nuclear reaction.Thats why the wheather is by no means exactly predictable .Weatherforecast stations are equipped all over the world with powerfull computer al linked together with different communication system.That gives them the possibility to predict the wheather approximately but never exactly.
[quote]Determinism, then, is the philosophical position that the universe is (in principle) predictable: given enough information about the present, one can predict the future with 100% accuracy.
Indeterminism is the position that the universe cannot be so modelled.
Quantum mechanically, the universe is indeterminate: there are truly random events in the universe that cannot be predicted, so neither can the universe at large be predicted. It can be approximated to certain degrees of accuracy, but it can never be predicted with 100% accuracy.
I hope that clears up the misconception you seem to have about determinism and indeterminism: first, they are mutually incompatible (both can't be true), and second, the universe is indeterminate (quantum mechanically speaking.).( unquote)
So I misunderstand Indeterminism and mix it up with "approximation".
Let's have a look how Wikipedia defines indeterminism giving several exampes of it:
1.No event is necessarily caused at all.
2.Some events are not necessarily caused.!!!
3.Some events are partyally caused by case.!!!
4.All events can be caused by necessity or by chance.
5 Necessity and chance are alternatively aging in what happens.!!!!!
6.The preservation is due to necessity the new to chance.!!!
The points 2,4,5,6 speak all clearly of the duality of necessity and chance.
It all confirms what I try to explain but is confronted with stubborn rejection. I looked about what Wikipedia says on approximation and din't found any connection whatsoever with indeterminism or something close to it.So let's drop also this weak argument.
Quote:Quote:quote='DD_8630
You misunderstand: Hawking himself stated that he believed the bet lost. He now believes that information is radiated in a garbled form, and I agree with him.
Quote:On the contrary, it is: even the 'many-worlds' hypothesis is a controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics. The consensus among scientists is that there is probably only one universe (ours), and that there certainly is no evidence thus far of alternate ones.
So you still maintain that the many world hypothesis is science fiction but in the same time and with your own words you present the hypothesis as controversial.
Controversy between who? street trash bin cleaners? taxi drivers?
The controversy goes on between scientists,so let's give them a litlle respect and let's not consider apriory their debate as science fiction.
Further you mention the consensus among scientists.
Fortunately science is not a democracy, I would say quite contrary.
Would science have been a democracy we would have science by now still before Copernicus ,Galileo,Newton ,Einstein or Hawking,to mention only the most proeminent of not consensual scientists.
I for my self have no sufficient knowledge in physics so as to take part in this controversy.The problem is interesting fom a general point of view on the world but has very little to do to with the ordinary world.
I brought up the issue only in connection with Hawking whom I consider as one of our greatest scientist and what was interesting for me was that I found in his book " A brief history of time" an idea which fitted my opinion on the limits of determinism.
He writes "..we could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being,who could observe the current state of the universe without disturbing it.Howewer ,such models of the universe are not of much interest to us ordinary mortals.It seems better to employ the principle of economy known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed",
I know that you don't agree with this idea but there are a lot of persons who do.
The Occam's razor principle ( who was he anyway?)brings us down from the high Olympus of philosophy to the practical world surrounding us.Dawkins mentions also in his book TGD the principle of economy in connection with evolution of life.
So what I am taking about is that most ,if not all of physical events in our ordinary world can be seen as a dual phenomenon of predictability and chance ,or causal and randomness,(there are a lot of parallel names) which can be defined with this general expression of determinism and indeterminism.
Quote:meteorological forecasts are wrong not because the universe is fweather are chaotic systems: tiny variation in the initial conditions lead to completely different outcomes. A particular breeze being slightly faster[/quote]Quote:You are confusing approximation with indeterminism. Economic and than measured, or a particular market sector being infinitesimally more saturated than polls determine, will yield completely different results.
It boils down to information. The weatherman is wrong because his calculations were a) derived using simplifying approximations and assumptions, and b) given inaccurate information. If a completely general and un-approximated solution could be derived, and if it were given the complete set of relevant data, it would be able to predict the climate at any time in the future.
So economic is up to you a totaly chaotic system?
You surely have heard about Adam Smith John Mill Stuart,Karl Marx,Keynes,Milton Friedman,just to mention only a few of famous economists who have cast economy in well known laws.Where they all idiots?
Sure economy is partially chaotic,say indeterministic, with the accent of the word partiallybecause it is in the same time governed by laws ,say determinisic ones.
Weather forecast is a stringent exemple of the same duality.
I come back to the second principle of thermodynamics.
A byproduct to it is that the temperature of the athmosphere is fundamentally chaotic.The heat as we know is dispersed by radiation convection and conduction.The atmosphere is heated by the sun by radiation and from below from the earth and oceans by radiation convection and conduction.Applying the Occams razor principle we must admit that the temperature of the athmosphere is unpredicable.Now a sudden temprature rise is able some times to trigger a chain reaction not unlike the nuclear reaction.Thats why the wheather is by no means exactly predictable .Weatherforecast stations are equipped all over the world with powerfull computer al linked together with different communication system.That gives them the possibility to predict the wheather approximately but never exactly.
[quote]Determinism, then, is the philosophical position that the universe is (in principle) predictable: given enough information about the present, one can predict the future with 100% accuracy.
Indeterminism is the position that the universe cannot be so modelled.
Quantum mechanically, the universe is indeterminate: there are truly random events in the universe that cannot be predicted, so neither can the universe at large be predicted. It can be approximated to certain degrees of accuracy, but it can never be predicted with 100% accuracy.
I hope that clears up the misconception you seem to have about determinism and indeterminism: first, they are mutually incompatible (both can't be true), and second, the universe is indeterminate (quantum mechanically speaking.).( unquote)
So I misunderstand Indeterminism and mix it up with "approximation".
Let's have a look how Wikipedia defines indeterminism giving several exampes of it:
1.No event is necessarily caused at all.
2.Some events are not necessarily caused.!!!
3.Some events are partyally caused by case.!!!
4.All events can be caused by necessity or by chance.
5 Necessity and chance are alternatively aging in what happens.!!!!!
6.The preservation is due to necessity the new to chance.!!!
The points 2,4,5,6 speak all clearly of the duality of necessity and chance.
It all confirms what I try to explain but is confronted with stubborn rejection. I looked about what Wikipedia says on approximation and din't found any connection whatsoever with indeterminism or something close to it.So let's drop also this weak argument.
