Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God

[half_pint]

Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)


regards half_pint

[[e-mail] (formerly)]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Does prophecy leave room for free will?

Post by half_pint
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?

The fact that scientists are not all knowing when making measurements, is
what the uncertainty principle is about.

Post by half_pint
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

Then it isn't really a *gamble*, now is it?

David A. Smith

[half_pint]

Post by ***@aol.com (formerly)

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Does prophecy leave room for free will?

I would say so. Both free will and devine intervention.

Post by ***@aol.com (formerly)

Post by half_pint
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?

The fact that scientists are not all knowing when making measurements, is
what the uncertainty principle is about.

Post by half_pint
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

Then it isn't really a *gamble*, now is it?

Depends whether you checked the results before you placed your bet.
Of course the only bets which I make which are gambles are the ones
which don't come in.

Post by ***@aol.com (formerly)
David A. Smith

[Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

In that case, why is he always looking for handouts on Sunday mornings?

Lanzlan.

Post by half_pint
regards half_pint

[half_pint]

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

In that case, why is he always looking for handouts on Sunday mornings?

Because he isn't we are.
And charity is not a handout it's a handup.
If you see charity as a handout you are a rather pathetic individual.

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Lanzlan.

Post by half_pint
regards half_pint

[Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th]

Post by half_pint

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

In that case, why is he always looking for handouts on Sunday
mornings?

Because he isn't we are.
And charity is not a handout it's a handup.
If you see charity as a handout you are a rather pathetic individual.

If you want to call giving your money to a fat priest a handup. Go for
it.

L.

Post by half_pint

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Lanzlan.

Post by half_pint
regards half_pint

[Gregory L. Hansen]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

How can you say your will is free if your actions are random, and not
exactly what you want them to be? Are random actions that you can't
control any more free than predetermined actions that you can't control?

[half_pint]

Post by Gregory L. Hansen

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

How can you say your will is free if your actions are random, and not
exactly what you want them to be? Are random actions that you can't
control any more free than predetermined actions that you can't control?

Well they might appear to be random but maybe my free will is in the
'apparent' randomness.

Post by Gregory L. Hansen
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Greg , You rhetorically ask :
" Are random actions that you can't control any more free
than predetermined actions that you can't control ? "

We don't have genuine free will ,
but we do have what I call " Pseudo Free Will " .

We also perceive only pseudo randomness and pseudo dynamics .

And each of us thinks we're great ...
Nothing objective about that .

As I recently said in another post :

Humans require an exact temperature ... No more , No less .

Mars is too cold , Venus is too hot .

Likewise ,
_ At 10 ^ -X seconds after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches infinity .

_ And at 10 ^ X years after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches zero .

So humans require not only this exact place ,
but also this exact cosmic time ... Very odd .

And what is it that we do ? We consume . Nothing else .

Just like everything everywhere does . Not very special .

Our pride is very subjective .

[Sam Wormley]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
Nothing about "divine intervention" in those equation half_pint!

Physics has nothing to do with religion.

[half_pint]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
Nothing about "divine intervention" in those equation half_pint!

Are you sure about that?
You seem a little "uncertain" :O|
God alone would understand them :O))

Post by Sam Wormley
Physics has nothing to do with religion.

How about those who study physics?

[Sam Wormley]

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
Nothing about "divine intervention" in those equation half_pint!

Are you sure about that?
You seem a little "uncertain" :O|
God alone would understand them :O))

Careful.. you can catch flies with your mouth open that much!

[alen]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

I say that, since nothing can exist without an observer, it is impossible
for uncertainty to exist in an absolute sense, in so far as it suggests
the existence of anything that is not being observed.

If God is the ultimate observer, uncertainty means that we only partially
know what he is doing.

Alen

[half_pint]

Post by alen

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

I say that, since nothing can exist without an observer,

??? I am not sure about that, I put a chicken in the fridge and closed the
door and the light (probably) went out. No one could observe it.
Are you saying the chicken no longer existed? It certaintly tasted good in
my
sandwiches the next day :O)

Post by alen
it is impossible
for uncertainty to exist in an absolute sense, in so far as it suggests
the existence of anything that is not being observed.
If God is the ultimate observer, uncertainty means that we only partially
know what he is doing.

Does the sun exist at night? Probably I would say. :O|

Post by alen
Alen

[alen]

Post by half_pint

Post by alen
I say that, since nothing can exist without an observer,

??? I am not sure about that, I put a chicken in the fridge and closed the
door and the light (probably) went out. No one could observe it.
Are you saying the chicken no longer existed? It certaintly tasted good in
my
sandwiches the next day :O)

No, I am not so silly as to say the chicken no longer existed! I will
express the meaning of what I said by the following argument:

If you imagine something to be existing while there is no observer
present, you yourself are looking at it to check that there is no
observer present and, therefore, you yourself are its observer.
It is impossible to eliminate yourself as well, in order that the
object might have no observer. If you even mention the existence
of anything, you are automatically the observer of its existence
to that extent. Therefore, it is intrinsically impossible to ever
imagine anything existing without an observer and it makes
no sense to try to speak of what no one can ever succeed
in imagining.

The best you can do to imagine something existing in your
absence is to identify yourself with another observer and thereby
regard yourself as absent. That is, you have to make your
identity multiple, and not single. This is what you are actually
doing when you imagine the chicken to be in the fridge in your
absence.

The result of the above argument is that we are compelled
to the view that everything that exists always has an observer,
because it is impossible for anyone to imagine an alternative.
Thus, we are compelled to say that, if your chicken exists, there
is necessarily always some being who is observing it.

Alen

[half_pint]

Post by alen

Post by half_pint

Post by alen
I say that, since nothing can exist without an observer,

??? I am not sure about that, I put a chicken in the fridge and closed

the

Post by half_pint
door and the light (probably) went out. No one could observe it.
Are you saying the chicken no longer existed? It certaintly tasted good

in

Post by half_pint
my
sandwiches the next day :O)

No, I am not so silly as to say the chicken no longer existed! I will
If you imagine something to be existing while there is no observer
present, you yourself are looking at it to check that there is no
observer present and, therefore, you yourself are its observer.
It is impossible to eliminate yourself as well, in order that the
object might have no observer. If you even mention the existence
of anything, you are automatically the observer of its existence
to that extent. Therefore, it is intrinsically impossible to ever
imagine anything existing without an observer and it makes
no sense to try to speak of what no one can ever succeed
in imagining.
The best you can do to imagine something existing in your
absence is to identify yourself with another observer and thereby
regard yourself as absent. That is, you have to make your
identity multiple, and not single. This is what you are actually
doing when you imagine the chicken to be in the fridge in your
absence.
The result of the above argument is that we are compelled
to the view that everything that exists always has an observer,
because it is impossible for anyone to imagine an alternative.
Thus, we are compelled to say that, if your chicken exists, there
is necessarily always some being who is observing it.

That soounds very much like a load of tripe to me.

Post by alen
Alen

[alen]

Post by half_pint
That soounds very much like a load of tripe to me.

So you had tripe with your chicken? I wonder what
that was like!

Seriously, though, what can I say other than that
I am disappointed that you think so!

Alen

[half_pint]

Post by alen

Post by half_pint
That soounds very much like a load of tripe to me.

So you had tripe with your chicken? I wonder what
that was like!
Seriously, though, what can I say other than that
I am disappointed that you think so!

Well you have to admit it's pointless garbage.

Post by alen
Alen

[FrediFizzx]

"half_pint" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bocc8h$1cmba9$***@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
| Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
| intervention and free will?
| Einstein say "God does not play dice".
| However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
| not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
| If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
| rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
| I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

Hehe. Is that like modifiable pre-destiny?

FrediFizzx

[zigoteau]

"half_pint" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bocc8h$1cmba9$***@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...


Hi, half_pint!

Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for divine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a particularly good
illustration of the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. It is
possible to consider the HUP to be a statement of the properties of
Fourier transforms.

We know that matter shows wave behavior, but under some circumstances
waves move a lot like particles. This is nothing new. When he was
pondering his theory of light, Newton considered both possibilities.
The correspondence between the particle and the wave properties of a
wave packet is expressed by the Planck-de Broglie equations:

p_x = hk
p_y = hl
p_z = hm
E = hf

where (k, l, m) is the average wavevector of the packet and f is its
average frequency. Locally, the wave has the form:

A*exp[2*i*pi*(k*x+l*y+m*z+f*t)]

For a small wavepacket of limited duration these particle properties
of a wave packet are not totally well defined. The packet can be
Fourier transformed, and the Fourier transform will have
non-negligible amplitude over a range of values of energy and
momentum. The ranges in energy and momentum are related to the ranges
in space and time by the HUP.

Wave mechanics is, in itself, perfectly deterministic. In fact the
equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum
chromodynamics, etc., are all perfectly deterministic. Where
indeterminacy comes in is the relationship between the wave function
and/or state vector, and the results of a specific experiment. The
wave function of a photon may spread uniformly over the whole of a
piece of film, but when you develop the film you will find a
collection of black dots, each one corresponding to the absorption of
a single photon. The theory does not at all restrict the result of any
individual experiment. It is possible to get a black dot on the film
at any location. It is only when you repeat the experiment a large
number of times under precisely identical conditions that the form of
the wave function starts to appear out of the distribution of the
black dots.

If I were you, I would be wary of anybody who pontificates about what
God does or does not think or do. I would also be wary about putting
your money on a horse.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

[Uncle Al]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Religion and science are orthogonal. If you try to apply one to the
other you get nothing.

Quantum mechanics is purely probabilistic. Absolute free will and no
divine control possible even in principle. Classical gravitation is
purely deterministic. An initial set of parameters invariably gives a
discrete answer. However... Multiple body systems are chaotic.
Specifying that initial set of parameters and keeping things
infinitely precise does not obtain in the real world, not by a
longshot. Dust exists, so does noise.

Bottom line: Even if your god set things in motion, all bets are off
thereafter. Physics rules the real world, not some god who can only
get pi correct to one significant figure.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Uncle Al

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Religion and science are orthogonal. If you try to apply one to the
other you get nothing.

Dot product or cross product? Newton was inspired in his theorizing by
his belief in the bland orderly God of the Deists.

Post by Uncle Al
Quantum mechanics is purely probabilistic. Absolute free will and no
divine control possible even in principle. Classical gravitation is
purely deterministic. An initial set of parameters invariably gives a
discrete answer. However... Multiple body systems are chaotic.
Specifying that initial set of parameters and keeping things
infinitely precise does not obtain in the real world, not by a
longshot. Dust exists, so does noise.
Bottom line: Even if your god set things in motion, all bets are off
thereafter. Physics rules the real world, not some god who can only
get pi correct to one significant figure.

Don't confuse biblical bubbah meises with theology. The Hebrews did not
have decimal notation and they were not (at that time) good
mathematicians. The Egyptians were. Jews pitched tents, Egyptians built
pyramids and the Babylonians built 400 foot tall Zaggaruts and the
Hanging Gardens.

The Egyptians were inspired to build the world tallest structures (at
least until the Eifel Tower) by belief in their gods and the afterlife.
The Babylonians built Zaggaruts because they wanted to touch the heavens
where there stellar-gods lived. The Babylonians invented astronomy and a
positional number system, inspired by their religion.

Meanwhile, in the New World, the Mayans were doing base 20 positional
bookkeeping complete with a zero inspired by the desire to figure when
the end of the world would come. Both they and the Aztecs predicted the
date. It was the date the Hernan Cortez landed. So don't knock the gods
too too much.

Bob Kolker


Bob Kolker

[Uncle Al]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Uncle Al

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Religion and science are orthogonal. If you try to apply one to the
other you get nothing.

Dot product or cross product? Newton was inspired in his theorizing by
his belief in the bland orderly God of the Deists.

The dot product will tell you if you've got something, but it won't
tell you where to go with it. The cross product will uniformly get
you nothing, which is even-handed as expected. "8^>)

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Uncle Al
Quantum mechanics is purely probabilistic. Absolute free will and no
divine control possible even in principle. Classical gravitation is
purely deterministic. An initial set of parameters invariably gives a
discrete answer. However... Multiple body systems are chaotic.
Specifying that initial set of parameters and keeping things
infinitely precise does not obtain in the real world, not by a
longshot. Dust exists, so does noise.
Bottom line: Even if your god set things in motion, all bets are off
thereafter. Physics rules the real world, not some god who can only
get pi correct to one significant figure.

Don't confuse biblical bubbah meises with theology. The Hebrews did not
have decimal notation and they were not (at that time) good
mathematicians. The Egyptians were. Jews pitched tents, Egyptians built
pyramids and the Babylonians built 400 foot tall Zaggaruts and the
Hanging Gardens.
The Egyptians were inspired to build the world tallest structures (at
least until the Eifel Tower) by belief in their gods and the afterlife.
The Babylonians built Zaggaruts because they wanted to touch the heavens
where there stellar-gods lived. The Babylonians invented astronomy and a
positional number system, inspired by their religion.
Meanwhile, in the New World, the Mayans were doing base 20 positional
bookkeeping complete with a zero inspired by the desire to figure when
the end of the world would come. Both they and the Aztecs predicted the
date. It was the date the Hernan Cortez landed. So don't knock the gods
too too much.

The priests did the brain work, the gods' extorted the populace to
support the priests in their only indirectly economic endeavors. Our
priests' endeavors are totally useless and worse. Call it theological
progess toward purity of endeavor.

The Maya calendar runs out on 21 December 2012 as the 13th and final
baktun is filled. Take Christmas early that year.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Uncle Al
The Maya calendar runs out on 21 December 2012 as the 13th and final
baktun is filled. Take Christmas early that year.

Not to worry. We shall all see 2013, or at least you will. I will have
to make it to nearly 80 to see if the Mayans were right. Should I die
sooner, it won't make any difference to me anyway.

Bob Kolker

[[e-mail] (formerly)]

Dear Uncle Al:

"Uncle Al" <***@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:***@hate.spam.net...
...

Post by Uncle Al
The Maya calendar runs out on 21 December 2012 as the 13th and final
baktun is filled. Take Christmas early that year.

Just send all the Mayans off at the speed of light now. Then no problems!

David A. Smith

[half_pint]

Post by Uncle Al

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Religion and science are orthogonal. If you try to apply one to the
other you get nothing.
Quantum mechanics is purely probabilistic. Absolute free will and no
divine control possible even in principle. Classical gravitation is
purely deterministic. An initial set of parameters invariably gives a
discrete answer. However... Multiple body systems are chaotic.
Specifying that initial set of parameters and keeping things
infinitely precise does not obtain in the real world, not by a
longshot. Dust exists, so does noise.
Bottom line: Even if your god set things in motion, all bets are off
thereafter. Physics rules the real world,

??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the world.
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Post by Uncle Al
not some god who can only
get pi correct to one significant figure.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

[Greg Neill]

Post by half_pint
??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the world.

Think of it as a glorious anarchy.

Don't confuse precusion with accuracy.

Post by half_pint
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Sure, just not both precicely at the same time.

[half_pint]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by half_pint
??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the

world.
Think of it as a glorious anarchy.

But does the anarchy and uncertaintly allow for 'devine intervention'?

Post by Sam Wormley
Don't confuse precusion with accuracy.

Post by half_pint
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Sure, just not both precicely at the same time.

The question implies at the same time, as the values at different times
are to all extents and purposes useless.

[Bilge]

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by half_pint
??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the

world.
Think of it as a glorious anarchy.

But does the anarchy and uncertaintly allow for 'devine intervention'?

Anything allows for devine intervention except quantifying the
physics not covered by devine intervention. Since physicists aren't
trying to explain anything in the realm of the divine, such
intervention is not physics.

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley
Don't confuse precusion with accuracy.

Post by half_pint
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Sure, just not both precicely at the same time.

The question implies at the same time, as the values at different times
are to all extents and purposes useless.

What reason do you have for believing that it would make physical
sense for a particle to even have a precise position and momentum
simultaneously? If it doesn't make physical sense to specify those
two quantities simultaneously, then it's obvious that one should
not expect physics to do so.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Bilge
What reason do you have for believing that it would make physical
sense for a particle to even have a precise position and momentum
simultaneously?

How is it possible for trap shooters to consistently blast clay pidgeons?

Bob Kolker

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Bilge
What reason do you have for believing that it would make physical
sense for a particle to even have a precise position and momentum
simultaneously?

How is it possible for trap shooters to consistently blast clay pidgeons?

Neither requires perfectly precise values, only close enough.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Neither requires perfectly precise values, only close enough.

That applies to just about anything in real life. Close enough does the
trick.

Bob Kolker

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Neither requires perfectly precise values, only close enough.

That applies to just about anything in real life. Close enough does the
trick.

Fortunately so, else nothing would ever happen.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Bilge]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Bilge
What reason do you have for believing that it would make physical
sense for a particle to even have a precise position and momentum
simultaneously?

How is it possible for trap shooters to consistently blast clay pidgeons?

Eherenfest's theorem

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Bilge
Eherenfest's theorem

Could you elaborate on that. I looked up Ehrenfast's Theorem which says
that d/dt<A> = expected value of the commutator of a Hamiltonian and an
Operator corresonding to the observable A. It made perfectly good sense
mathematically, but I just do not see the application. Can you help me out?

Thank you.

Bob Kolker

[Bilge]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Bilge
Eherenfest's theorem

Could you elaborate on that. I looked up Ehrenfast's Theorem which says
that d/dt<A> = expected value of the commutator of a Hamiltonian and an
Operator corresonding to the observable A.

Precisely.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
It made perfectly good sense mathematically, but I just do not see
the application. Can you help me out?

Translated into english, it means that classical mechanics is
recovered in the limit that the operators can be replaced by
their expectation values. In other words for the operator
x, you get:

Expectation correspondance
value of to classical
operator variables

d<x>/dt = <p>/m <=> v = p/m

d<p>/dt = -<dU/dx> <=> F = dp/dt = - dU/dx

The expectation of the operator x as it evolves in time is the classical
trajectory. The expectation value of the operator p as it evolves in time
is the force which is the expectation value of the gradient of the
potential. That's why quantum mechanics is also the best theory of
classical mechanics we have.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Bilge
The expectation of the operator x as it evolves in time is the classical
trajectory. The expectation value of the operator p as it evolves in time
is the force which is the expectation value of the gradient of the
potential. That's why quantum mechanics is also the best theory of
classical mechanics we have.

Wizard! Thank you.

Bob Kolker

[half_pint]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Bilge
The expectation of the operator x as it evolves in time is the classical
trajectory. The expectation value of the operator p as it evolves in time
is the force which is the expectation value of the gradient of the
potential. That's why quantum mechanics is also the best theory of
classical mechanics we have.

Wizard! Thank you.
Bob Kolker

To be honest that sounds like bollocks to me :O|

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by half_pint
To be honest that sounds like bollocks to me :O|

To be honest, you don't know what you are talking about. For large
masses quantum mechanics tends to classical mechanics in the limit.

Bob Kolker

[Greg Neill]

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by half_pint
??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the

world.
Think of it as a glorious anarchy.

But does the anarchy and uncertaintly allow for 'devine intervention'?

That's a philosphical question at best. "Magic" is not
addressed by physics.

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley
Don't confuse precusion with accuracy.

Post by half_pint
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Sure, just not both precicely at the same time.

The question implies at the same time, as the values at different times
are to all extents and purposes useless.

Useless for what? Surely it depends upon what you
want to do with the information?

[half_pint]

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by half_pint
??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the

world.
Think of it as a glorious anarchy.

But does the anarchy and uncertaintly allow for 'devine intervention'?

That's a philosphical question at best. "Magic" is not
addressed by physics.

Really? So you can bury you head in the sand then and ignore the facts?

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint

Post by Sam Wormley
Don't confuse precusion with accuracy.

Post by half_pint
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Sure, just not both precicely at the same time.

The question implies at the same time, as the values at different times
are to all extents and purposes useless.

Useless for what? Surely it depends upon what you
want to do with the information?

Use it to determine the future? Isn't that what physics is oftern used for?

[Greg Neill]

[snip]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
That's a philosphical question at best. "Magic" is not
addressed by physics.

Really? So you can bury you head in the sand then and ignore the facts?

What facts? There are no facts (other than it being a fact
that there's no evidence that magic exists).

[snip]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
Useless for what? Surely it depends upon what you
want to do with the information?

Use it to determine the future? Isn't that what physics is oftern used for?

The evolution of the grand scheme of things is not critically
dependent on the uncertainty principle; it operates chiefly
on the very smallest scales. The big picture can be predicted
quite satisfactorily. Much of what goes on in the universe
that's of interest to us is governed more by thermodynamics
(statistical mechanics) than quantum uncertainty.

What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

[half_pint]

Post by Paul Cardinale
[snip]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
That's a philosphical question at best. "Magic" is not
addressed by physics.

Really? So you can bury you head in the sand then and ignore the facts?

What facts? There are no facts (other than it being a fact
that there's no evidence that magic exists).

Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was considered
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

Post by Paul Cardinale
[snip]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
Useless for what? Surely it depends upon what you
want to do with the information?

Use it to determine the future? Isn't that what physics is oftern used for?

The evolution of the grand scheme of things is not critically
dependent on the uncertainty principle; it operates chiefly
on the very smallest scales.

Ah!!! chiefly! you sound *uncertain* :O|

Post by Paul Cardinale
The big picture can be predicted
quite satisfactorily.

Quite? Thats a disconcertingly vague word for a scientist!!

Post by Paul Cardinale
Much of what goes on in the universe
that's of interest to us is governed more by thermodynamics
(statistical mechanics) than quantum uncertainty.

Much???

Post by Paul Cardinale
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)

"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

half_pint.

[Greg Neill]

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was considered
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

[half_pint]

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was considered
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

[Greg Neill]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

You will run into the vagaries of chaos theory long
before you have to worry about the uncertainty
principle.

[half_pint]

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

You will run into the vagaries of chaos theory long
before you have to worry about the uncertainty
principle.

All further evidence

[Greg Neill]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

You will run into the vagaries of chaos theory long
before you have to worry about the uncertainty
principle.

All further evidence

That wasn't a sentence.

[half_pint]

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

You will run into the vagaries of chaos theory long
before you have to worry about the uncertainty
principle.

All further evidence

That wasn't a sentence.

It was never intended

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was considered
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

Of course you can't. But this has nothing to do with the uncertainty
principle.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[half_pint]

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was considered
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

Of course you can't. But this has nothing to do with the uncertainty
principle.

Are you sure about that :O|

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,

[Paul R. Mays]

Post by zigoteau

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was

considered

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

Of course you can't. But this has nothing to do with the uncertainty
principle.

Are you sure about that :O|

I wouldn't be all the certain of either position at the moment....

Post by zigoteau

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by zigoteau

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was

considered

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

Of course you can't. But this has nothing to do with the uncertainty
principle.

Are you sure about that :O|

Are you trying to actually learn something, or just to waste time?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Paul R. Mays]

Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Are you sure the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is valid?

Not absolutely sure.

Then it must be valid.

Then it can't be valid because if its valid its for damn certain valid.

So if its valid its not uncertainly valid....

Dog ... go get me a beer.....

[half_pint]

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by zigoteau

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was

considered

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to be
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

Of course you can't. But this has nothing to do with the uncertainty
principle.

Are you sure about that :O|

Are you trying to actually learn something, or just to waste time?

Maybe it is people like you who need to be learned.

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,

[Greg Neill]

Post by half_pint
Maybe it is people like you who need to be learned.

Yikes.

<*plonk*>

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by half_pint

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by zigoteau

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
Magic is a bit of a distraction however, much of physics was

considered

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
magic
at some point, and much still is.
Magic by definition is pretty unprovable.

When physics was first practiced, its specific goal
was to remove the "magic" and bring rational order
to the study of nature. This is still the case.
One would like to think that we've at least managed
to sequester the little bit of magic that's left
into tidy containers and labelled them carefully for
further study.

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill
What sort of prediction do you want to make that would
require accuracy at the scale of hbar?

??? I am not sure what you are talking about here (or anywhere to

be

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by zigoteau

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by half_pint

Post by Greg Neill

Post by half_pint
*precise*)
"Many a mickle macs a muckle" (Old Scottish phrase)

What is it you wanted to predict using physics but
can't because the uncertainty principle makes it
useless?

That we cannot be absolutey certain of anything?

Of course you can't. But this has nothing to do with the uncertainty
principle.

Are you sure about that :O|

Are you trying to actually learn something, or just to waste time?

Maybe it is people like you who need to be learned.

Well, it appears we've an answer:-) Good bye, then

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Helmut Wabnig]

Post by half_pint
??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the world.

Physics is there to build better weapons.

Post by half_pint
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

Ask the American Chopper Tourists in Irak.


w.

[Igor]

Post by half_pint

Post by Uncle Al

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Religion and science are orthogonal. If you try to apply one to the
other you get nothing.
Quantum mechanics is purely probabilistic. Absolute free will and no
divine control possible even in principle. Classical gravitation is
purely deterministic. An initial set of parameters invariably gives a
discrete answer. However... Multiple body systems are chaotic.
Specifying that initial set of parameters and keeping things
infinitely precise does not obtain in the real world, not by a
longshot. Dust exists, so does noise.
Bottom line: Even if your god set things in motion, all bets are off
thereafter. Physics rules the real world,

??? physics is not predicable or determinable so how can it rule the world.
Can physics give the position and momentum of a particle?

You're looking at the wrong place. Quantum mechanics is entirely
deterministic on the level of the wave function. Given a set of
initial conditions and the wave equation, we can predict with complete
accuracy how the function will evolve. That's all we really need to
know. That we're hung up on classical notions of position and
momentum is our problem, certainly not nature's.

Post by half_pint

Post by Uncle Al
not some god who can only
get pi correct to one significant figure.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

[half_pint]

Post by Uncle Al

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Religion and science are orthogonal. If you try to apply one to the
other you get nothing.

Surely Heisenberg uncertaintly allows both, it means we live in a world
which we cannot control or predict.

[Paul Cardinale]

Uncle Al <***@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<***@hate.spam.net>...

[snip]

Post by Uncle Al
Physics rules the real world, not some god who can only
get pi correct to one significant figure.

I haven't heard of that before. Is there some religious text,
claiming to be the word of some god, that gives a value for pi?

Paul Cardinale

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Paul Cardinale
I haven't heard of that before. Is there some religious text,
claiming to be the word of some god, that gives a value for pi?

First Kings 7:23 which describes the rim of the "brass sea" (a big brass
pot for laving as part of the Temple service) being thrice around what
it is across.

Bob Kolker

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Paul Cardinale
I haven't heard of that before. Is there some religious text,
claiming to be the word of some god, that gives a value for pi?

First Kings 7:23 which describes the rim of the "brass sea" (a big brass
pot for laving as part of the Temple service) being thrice around what
it is across.

Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be the
word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be the
word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

The Protestant fundies claim the entire bible as the World of the Living
Gawwwdddd. You should see some of the postings listed on Google that
explain away the crude 3:1 estimate for pi.

Bob Kolker

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be the
word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

The Protestant fundies claim the entire bible as the World of the Living
Gawwwdddd.

Oh, I know, but should I be concerned with what they claim. The
authors never claimed that.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
You should see some of the postings listed on Google that
explain away the crude 3:1 estimate for pi.

Sounds like fun:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th]

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be
the word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

The Protestant fundies claim the entire bible as the World of the
Living Gawwwdddd.

Oh, I know, but should I be concerned with what they claim. The
authors never claimed that.

Is that so. You are now going to enlighten us on who the authors might
be?

Llanzlan.

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by Robert J. Kolker
You should see some of the postings listed on Google that
explain away the crude 3:1 estimate for pi.

Sounds like fun:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be
the word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

The Protestant fundies claim the entire bible as the World of the
Living Gawwwdddd.

Oh, I know, but should I be concerned with what they claim. The
authors never claimed that.

Is that so. You are now going to enlighten us on who the authors might
be?

There were lots of them. It is an antology of documents, not a single
one. Some mythology, some law code, some history, some literature,
some philosophy. The styles, wording etc. changes between various
parts.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[stephen bayzik]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be the
word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

The Protestant fundies claim the entire bible as the World of the Living
Gawwwdddd. You should see some of the postings listed on Google that
explain away the crude 3:1 estimate for pi.

Your point is well taken. But listening to their "witnessing" does give one
a good chuckle.

Take care,

--
Stephen Bayzik

[Gregory L. Hansen]

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Paul Cardinale
I haven't heard of that before. Is there some religious text,
claiming to be the word of some god, that gives a value for pi?

First Kings 7:23 which describes the rim of the "brass sea" (a big brass
pot for laving as part of the Temple service) being thrice around what
it is across.

Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be the
word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

I would't worry much about it. If the brass sea was 10 cubits across,
then 10*pi=30. There's only one sig-fig in "10", so there can be only one
sig-fig in the answer.

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Gregory L. Hansen

Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Paul Cardinale
I haven't heard of that before. Is there some religious text,
claiming to be the word of some god, that gives a value for pi?

First Kings 7:23 which describes the rim of the "brass sea" (a big brass
pot for laving as part of the Temple service) being thrice around what
it is across.

Doesn't qualify as "the word of god", I'm afraid. Keep in mind that
there are only specific parts of the bible which are claimed to be the
word of god, the rest is presented as human account.

I would't worry much about it. If the brass sea was 10 cubits across,
then 10*pi=30. There's only one sig-fig in "10", so there can be only one
sig-fig in the answer.
--

Indeed. Ana I'm sure that the court clerks who were writing this
stuff down didn't care about the details anyway.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[alen]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Paul Cardinale
I haven't heard of that before. Is there some religious text,
claiming to be the word of some god, that gives a value for pi?

First Kings 7:23 which describes the rim of the "brass sea" (a big brass
pot for laving as part of the Temple service) being thrice around what
it is across.
Bob Kolker

Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

Alen

[Sam Wormley]

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

Pi doesn't mean that at all. A circle is a circle and Pi relates its
circumference to its diameter.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

[alen]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

Pi doesn't mean that at all. A circle is a circle and Pi relates its
circumference to its diameter.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

I don't understand how you argue that, since pi is an irrational
number and, to use it, you have to select a particular number
of decimal places. This means that a real circle always has
to actually be a polygon with a very large number of sides.

Alen

[y***@highstream.com]

Oh dear...even smart pepole can get their arguments backwards if they are
looking for a particular result.

The problem is in the math not in the circle. THe concept is clear and
predictive. your 'understanding' of math is imperfect not the circle

Martin

Post by alen

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

Pi doesn't mean that at all. A circle is a circle and Pi relates its
circumference to its diameter.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

I don't understand how you argue that, since pi is an irrational
number and, to use it, you have to select a particular number
of decimal places. This means that a real circle always has
to actually be a polygon with a very large number of sides.
Alen

[alen]

I think I see what you are trying to say, and I think it
might take a long argument to work through it.

Alen

Post by y***@highstream.com
Oh dear...even smart pepole can get their arguments backwards if they are
looking for a particular result.
The problem is in the math not in the circle. THe concept is clear and
predictive. your 'understanding' of math is imperfect not the circle
Martin

Post by alen

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

Pi doesn't mean that at all. A circle is a circle and Pi relates its
circumference to its diameter.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

I don't understand how you argue that, since pi is an irrational
number and, to use it, you have to select a particular number
of decimal places. This means that a real circle always has
to actually be a polygon with a very large number of sides.
Alen

[Sam Wormley]

Post by alen

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

Pi doesn't mean that at all. A circle is a circle and Pi relates its
circumference to its diameter.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

I don't understand how you argue that, since pi is an irrational
number and, to use it, you have to select a particular number
of decimal places. This means that a real circle always has
to actually be a polygon with a very large number of sides.
Alen

Pi is an exact number.... your use of a truncated version is an
approximation. Your truncations don't change physical reality.

[alen]

Post by Sam Wormley
Pi is an exact number.... your use of a truncated version is an
approximation. Your truncations don't change physical reality.

I think you appear to agree with Martin's argument. I won't
pursue it further, because I think it would have to involve an
expanded debate about reality and the continuum etc.

Alen

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

There are no real circles. A circle is a mathematical concept that
either lives only in our heads, or in some Platonic Realm. The real
planar circle is an abstraction and the ratio of its circumference to
its diamete is a transcendal number lying between 3.1415 and 3.1416

The biblical 3:1 is for very crude artisans who could not trace out a
decent imitation circle in the dirt.

Bob Kolker

[m***@cars3.uchicago.edu]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by alen
Pi means that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, and every
real circle is an approximation, which can always be made
endlessly more perfect.

There are no real circles. A circle is a mathematical concept that
either lives only in our heads, or in some Platonic Realm. The real
planar circle is an abstraction and the ratio of its circumference to
its diamete is a transcendal number lying between 3.1415 and 3.1416
The biblical 3:1 is for very crude artisans who could not trace out a
decent imitation circle in the dirt.

You've a bit of confusion here. I'm sure that the artisans were
already good enough to make a decent circular shape, back then. But
it wasn't the artisans who wrote the accounts you're talking about, it
was the court clerks who did. The court clerks were respectable
people and then (as throughout most of history) the measure of the
respectability of a person was directly proportional to the distance
separateing him from any actual (manual) labor. Do you really think
that the clerks knew (or cared to know) the first thing about the
manufacture of circular objects. You can be pretty sure that the
actual work and whatever they wrote about had about as much in common
as a modern day research project has to do with the the press release
describing it:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[alen]

Post by Robert J. Kolker
There are no real circles. A circle is a mathematical concept that
either lives only in our heads, or in some Platonic Realm. The real
planar circle is an abstraction and the ratio of its circumference to
its diamete is a transcendal number lying between 3.1415 and 3.1416
The biblical 3:1 is for very crude artisans who could not trace out a
decent imitation circle in the dirt.
Bob Kolker

Yes, I think we agree!

Alen

[AaronB]

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Free will is an interesting (and very difficult) concept to deal with,
since our apparent reality is based only on our five senses. I don't
think Heisenberg really has much to do with it one way or another; the
effects of Uncertainty Principle on macroscopic objects about as
significant as the force of gravity I exert on the Earth. Our free
will, as we see it, may be only an illusion: some psychologist and/or
neurologists suggest that "free will" and the conscious "voice" in our
heads are simply the brain's explanation for actions that it feels it
has to do to keep the body functioning. The conscious "voice" is
suggested to be the outlet of the *incredibly* powerful left brain
rationalizing its actions. Who it's rationalizing its actions to is a
whole nother story (the right brain?, the soul? I'm not sure)... The
idea generally stems from people who have split brains (where the
lobes are no longer properly connected) or partial lobotamies.

Post by half_pint
Einstein say "God does not play dice".

I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.

Post by half_pint
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?

Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.

Post by half_pint
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

[half_pint]

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?

Free will is an interesting (and very difficult) concept to deal with,
since our apparent reality is based only on our five senses. I don't
think Heisenberg really has much to do with it one way or another; the
effects of Uncertainty Principle on macroscopic objects about as
significant as the force of gravity I exert on the Earth. Our free
will, as we see it, may be only an illusion: some psychologist and/or
neurologists suggest that "free will" and the conscious "voice" in our
heads are simply the brain's explanation for actions that it feels it
has to do to keep the body functioning. The conscious "voice" is
suggested to be the outlet of the *incredibly* powerful left brain
rationalizing its actions. Who it's rationalizing its actions to is a
whole nother story (the right brain?, the soul? I'm not sure)... The
idea generally stems from people who have split brains (where the
lobes are no longer properly connected) or partial lobotamies.

But because of uncertainty we cannot be completely predictable.
Many events appear to be probability, what determines the exact
event is unknown and unknowable.

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
Einstein say "God does not play dice".

I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.

Sounds exactly the same to me, the only diffference is the ommision
of universe in my quote (which I too for granted as inherently implied).
Changing your quote for mine does not effect the reasoning at all.

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?

Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.

I am not saying that, I am saying that science cannot explain all in the
Universe
and thus cannot be used to say God does not exist.

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

[AaronB]

Post by half_pint
But because of uncertainty we cannot be completely predictable.
Many events appear to be probability, what determines the exact
event is unknown and unknowable.

The specific actions of a single human may be hard to predict, even
bordering on random. However, if you look at the actions of one
hundred, ten thousand, a million, humans simultaneously, you will see
a very specific, very exact methodology. Consider a bee hive. It seems
chaotic, totally illogical and random. But in fact, each bee has a
VERY specific, biologically programmed job. There is an uncertain
nature in whether a given bee will live or die on a given day, whether
the hive will be destroyed, etc, but that (aside from NOT being an
example of uncertainty principle, which would never have an effect on
such a large object) too is biologically programmed as part of the
bee. They are extremely precise. Though, for me, I think that, and
biology in general for that matter, is a much stronger case for belief
in God than uncertainty principle could ever be.

Post by half_pint

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
Einstein say "God does not play dice".

I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.

Sounds exactly the same to me, the only diffference is the ommision
of universe in my quote (which I too for granted as inherently implied).
Changing your quote for mine does not effect the reasoning at all.

It changes it significantly, and you of all people should be aware of
the difference. The difference is uncertainty, of course. Saying "God
does not play dice with the universe" is a statement of authority;
saying the other is an opinion: it implies that the author cannot
believe such a thing to be true, but does not say that it is not true.
Einstein has been misquoted on this count many times, for brevity's
sake and to make the statement appear more authoritative. In its
original form, I think the quote is much more interesting anyway. How
can we say something is definitely uncertain, if the universe is
uncertain?

Post by half_pint

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?

Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.

I am not saying that, I am saying that science cannot explain all in the
Universe
and thus cannot be used to say God does not exist.

It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.

[half_pint]

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
But because of uncertainty we cannot be completely predictable.
Many events appear to be probability, what determines the exact
event is unknown and unknowable.

The specific actions of a single human may be hard to predict, even
bordering on random. However, if you look at the actions of one
hundred, ten thousand, a million, humans simultaneously, you will see
a very specific, very exact methodology. Consider a bee hive. It seems
chaotic, totally illogical and random. But in fact, each bee has a
VERY specific, biologically programmed job. There is an uncertain
nature in whether a given bee will live or die on a given day, whether
the hive will be destroyed, etc, but that (aside from NOT being an
example of uncertainty principle, which would never have an effect on
such a large object) too is biologically programmed as part of the
bee. They are extremely precise. Though, for me, I think that, and
biology in general for that matter, is a much stronger case for belief
in God than uncertainty principle could ever be.

Both perhaps?

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
Einstein say "God does not play dice".

I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.

Sounds exactly the same to me, the only diffference is the ommision
of universe in my quote (which I too for granted as inherently implied).
Changing your quote for mine does not effect the reasoning at all.

It changes it significantly, and you of all people should be aware of
the difference. The difference is uncertainty, of course. Saying "God
does not play dice with the universe" is a statement of authority;
saying the other is an opinion: it implies that the author cannot
believe such a thing to be true, but does not say that it is not true.
Einstein has been misquoted on this count many times, for brevity's
sake and to make the statement appear more authoritative. In its
original form, I think the quote is much more interesting anyway. How
can we say something is definitely uncertain, if the universe is
uncertain?

God can make things certain or uncertain as he chooses?

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint

Post by AaronB

Post by half_pint
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?

Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.

I am not saying that, I am saying that science cannot explain all in the
Universe
and thus cannot be used to say God does not exist.

It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.

I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???

[AaronB]

"half_pint" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<boffsc$1el5su$***@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...

[snip]

Post by half_pint

Post by AaronB
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.

I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???

You can prove that there isn't an elephant in your hand right now. You
can't prove that there won't be one there the next time you check.
It's impossible to prove anything does or does not exist at any point
in time except the present (and even then it's difficult)

Here's something random to think about: uncertainty principle does not
require the universe to be uncertain. If EVERYTHING in the universe
was absolutely predicted, from beginning to end, then uncertainty
would still be valid. That is, if action in the universe, down to the
smallest quark oscillation happened according to a very strict script,
uncertainty would still be valid, because we can't see the script. But
do a higher authority (God), uncertainty may not exist, because the
script has already been written. In that sense, we have absolutely no
free will, but it makes no difference on the ultimate outcome.

[half_pint]

Post by Paul Cardinale
[snip]

Post by half_pint

Post by AaronB
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.

I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???

You can prove that there isn't an elephant in your hand right now. You
can't prove that there won't be one there the next time you check.
It's impossible to prove anything does or does not exist at any point
in time except the present (and even then it's difficult)
Here's something random to think about: uncertainty principle does not
require the universe to be uncertain. If EVERYTHING in the universe
was absolutely predicted, from beginning to end, then uncertainty
would still be valid. That is, if action in the universe, down to the
smallest quark oscillation happened according to a very strict script,
uncertainty would still be valid, because we can't see the script. But
do a higher authority (God), uncertainty may not exist, because the
script has already been written. In that sense, we have absolutely no
free will, but it makes no difference on the ultimate outcome.

An all powerful God can create a universe which has uncertainty.

[Daniel Jetson]

�

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

�
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
--� Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999

------

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.

------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman
�
�

[half_pint]

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts, so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

[Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th]

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts,

Such as?

Post by half_pint
so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.

No one claimed he was. Daniel was simply making sure you were not trying to
claim that Einstein believed in things that he in fact did not.

Post by half_pint
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

Ditto for you.

L.

[half_pint]

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts,

Such as?

H. U. Principle?

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint
so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.

No one claimed he was. Daniel was simply making sure you were not trying to
claim that Einstein believed in things that he in fact did not.

He said he didnt believe in a personal God not that he didnt believe in God,
hedging his bets?

He sounds uncertain?

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

Ditto for you.
L.

[Daniel Jetson]

�

Post by half_pint

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts,

Such as?

H. U. Principle?

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint
so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.

No one claimed he was. Daniel was simply making sure you were not trying

to

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
claim that Einstein believed in things that he in fact did not.

He said he didnt believe in a personal God not that he didnt believe in God,
hedging his bets?
He sounds uncertain?

I think to anyone but you he made it pretty damn plain he
was an atheist. Atheist Russians all the time say thank God etc.
it don't mean they believe in any gods.
�
�
�
�

[half_pint]

http://www.99main.com/~charlief/Blindness.htm

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts,

Such as?

H. U. Principle?

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

Post by half_pint
so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.

No one claimed he was. Daniel was simply making sure you were not trying

to

Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
claim that Einstein believed in things that he in fact did not.

He said he didnt believe in a personal God not that he didnt believe in God,
hedging his bets?
He sounds uncertain?

I think to anyone but you he made it pretty damn plain he
was an atheist. Atheist Russians all the time say thank God etc.
it don't mean they believe in any gods.

I am not saying he is not an atheist at all, its just unusual
for an atheist to speak of God as the creator of the universe
"God does not play dice".( so similar quote), its not a figure of
speach like "Thank God" in that sense.
Also his beliefs are based up on logical reasoning of many
religions which he apparently has not studied.
Faith is not really a provable thing, otherwise it would not
be a faith, it would be a fact.

[Daniel Jetson]

�

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts, so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

�

Let me guess by the creation "scientists".
�
�

[half_pint]

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts, so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

Let me guess by the creation "scientists".

I am a little uncertain what you are trying to say here, Einestein
seems a little uncertain of what he is saying sometimes which is
a bit odd if he doesn't believe in the uncertainty principle?
I meant by other scientists if I understand you correctly, or
by the observable facts. The beliefs of the scientists doen't really
matter on the issue of whether we can absolutely determine
the universe or not.
Fact seems to be, that we cannot do this absolutely.

[Streamking]

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts, so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

Let me guess by the creation "scientists".

I am a little uncertain what you are trying to say here, Einestein
seems a little uncertain of what he is saying sometimes which is
a bit odd if he doesn't believe in the uncertainty principle?
I meant by other scientists if I understand you correctly, or
by the observable facts. The beliefs of the scientists doen't really
matter on the issue of whether we can absolutely determine
the universe or not.
Fact seems to be, that we cannot do this absolutely.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is related with the feature that
microsopic objects cannot be treated in a classical way. I've never
understand it really but that relation is also dependent on the
definition of uncertainty, because I believe it is not valid for a
single particle, but the average
result. Personally I'm not sure how the connection is with 'free
will'. If the outcome of the collapse of the wave funtion is purely
random it really doesn't make you free. In that case there is no
difference between being embedded into a deterministic universe or a
purely random universe, on microscopic level. Because whether the
universe is deterministic or not they still imply our behaviour. There
are also other difficult points in this problem. We all can imagine
that
what we 'see' is just a projection of a deeper reality. Some people
try to use god for that but if someone is able to create an other
world it has the same right as a god, because if it is part of the
unknown area of the universe we cannot judge which is the right one.
The only thing that we can say about such a reality is that the
projecten of it must be the same as our world otherwise it should be
rejected. This proves that the existence of a god is purely
hypothetical. An other important point is the laws of physics, even if
you believe it is not the ultimate reality you have to admit they are
consistent, exact and 'objective'. Even if we think that they are
subjective and just a projection of a deeper reality we can treat them
as being part of the reality, because there cannot be a subjective
universe without an objective universe. Because of this the real world
could be totally deterministic. The fact that we are limited to
randomness on microsopic level does not imply that the world must be
random. Of course we can ignore this part if it gives no information
for our known world, but on the other hand consiousness and free will
are very difficult problems that are not yet explained. They almost
made me crazy and gave me a lot of sleepness nights and I use a kind
of temporarily solution to get rid of the problem: the universe is
completely deterministic, because our will is completely free and this
absolute freedom is exactly the randomness that someone else cannot
determine.

Enough nonsence for now,
Edwin

[Daniel Jetson]

�

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint

Post by Daniel Jetson

Post by half_pint
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
-------
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects
of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a
God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death
of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
------------
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999
------
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you
finally discover how something works, you get some laws which
you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But
you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave
him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out
yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't
believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time, life and death, stuff
like that. God is always associated with those things that you
do not understand. Richard Feynman.
------
We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which
constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being
played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not
know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is
to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may
eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game
are what we mean by fundamental physics... Richard Feynman

Of course Einstein has been proven wrong on many of his
thoughts, so he is no fountain of absolute knowledge.
Ditto for the lesser mortals you quote.

Let me guess by the creation "scientists".

I am a little uncertain what you are trying to say here, Einestein
seems a little uncertain of what he is saying sometimes which is
a bit odd if he doesn't believe in the uncertainty principle?
I meant by other scientists if I understand you correctly, or
by the observable facts. The beliefs of the scientists doen't really
matter on the issue of whether we can absolutely determine
the universe or not.
Fact seems to be, that we cannot do this absolutely.

You religonuts take up time, resources, and the benefits of peace
upon this planet, that could much more productively be use
in peacing not warring, fact finding not myth adherence, and
spending money on the Super Conducting Super Collider,
instead of bailing out missionaries out of the Philippines and
Afghanistan which makes any traveling American susceptible
to kidnaping. The fact is Einstein was� not against the
uncertainty principle he did not believe in action at a distance
(entanglement). Where action happens non-locally instantaneously.
Einstein felt quantum mechanics was not the complete answer,
that there was more to understand, and because we do not
have a theory of quantum gravity he was justified in saying that.
�
�
�

[Jeff Relf]

Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "

It's _ Very _ likely that true randomness doesn't exist .

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only says
we'll always _ Perceive _ randomness .

It makes no statement about
wether that randomness is genuine or not .

Sure , due to our extremely limited powers of observation ,
Nature seem like a casino , where , in the long run ,
everyone , and indeed everything , loses to the house .

All the great physicists know that nature , unobserved ,
is static ... spatial ... immutable , etc. .

" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
_ Einstein on Static Nature and Spatial Time .

" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
_ Hermann Weyl , Einstein's colleague .

" In summary , the title of this essay was a question :
' Is everything determined ? '
The answer is yes , it is .
But it might as well not be ,
because we can never know what is determined . "
_ Stephen Hawking in " Black Holes and Baby Universes " ,
University of Cambridge , 1990

WMAP's pictures are
the closest we have ever come to seeing spatial time .

When the high resolution infrared cameras of Nasa's WMAP
looks at scales much bigger than 10 ^ 10 cm ,
it only sees Static Uniformity .

The temperature of the cosmic microwave background
only varies from about 2.749 to 2.751 degrees Kelvin .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_structure.html
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

[half_pint]

Post by Jeff Relf
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
It's _ Very _ likely that true randomness doesn't exist .

Not even radioactive decay?
Is that predectable, predeterminable?

Post by Jeff Relf
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only says
we'll always _ Perceive _ randomness .

What do you mean only?
We only always perceive 1+1=2 WTF do u mean?
Radio active decay?

Post by Jeff Relf
It makes no statement about
wether that randomness is genuine or not .
Sure , due to our extremely limited powers of observation ,
Nature seem like a casino , where , in the long run ,
everyone , and indeed everything , loses to the house .
All the great physicists know that nature , unobserved ,
is static ... spatial ... immutable , etc. .

????
Thats guess work.

Post by Jeff Relf
" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
_ Einstein on Static Nature and Spatial Time .
" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
_ Hermann Weyl , Einstein's colleague .
' Is everything determined ? '
The answer is yes , it is .
But it might as well not be ,
because we can never know what is determined . "
_ Stephen Hawking in " Black Holes and Baby Universes " ,
University of Cambridge , 1990
WMAP's pictures are
the closest we have ever come to seeing spatial time .
When the high resolution infrared cameras of Nasa's WMAP
looks at scales much bigger than 10 ^ 10 cm ,
it only sees Static Uniformity .
The temperature of the cosmic microwave background
only varies from about 2.749 to 2.751 degrees Kelvin .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_structure.html
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/L2_990425_120.jpg
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/030624/030624_m.jpg

http://www.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/gsfc/spacesci/pictures/2003/0206mapresults/Full_m.j
pg

Post by Jeff Relf
http://www.loyno.edu/~brans/einstein.jpg

[Jeff Relf]

Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "

Even though we can never fully observe it ,
Nature is surely infinite in complexity and breadth .

Defining " God " as infinite in any way is meaningless .

Calling nature " God " is patently meaningless .

Besides , _ Genuine _ nature is probably static , spatial .
( And falsely dynamic . )

I've found that most meaningful way
to think of a " Religion " is to call it :
" One hierarchy among many overlapping hierarchies . "

Similarly , The most meaningful definition of " God " is :
" One parent node among many overlapping parent nodes . "

[half_pint]

Post by Jeff Relf
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
Even though we can never fully observe it ,
Nature is surely infinite in complexity and breadth .

Evidence?

Post by Jeff Relf
Defining " God " as infinite in any way is meaningless .

Why?

Post by Jeff Relf
Calling nature " God " is patently meaningless .

Why?

Post by Jeff Relf
Besides , _ Genuine _ nature is probably static , spatial .
( And falsely dynamic . )

That just sounds like _ bollocks _

Post by Jeff Relf
I've found that most meaningful way
" One hierarchy among many overlapping hierarchies . "

Thats mumbo jumbo do you ever utter a coherent sentence.

do you call a "car" a "transplantation concepurentor"?

Post by Jeff Relf
" One parent node among many overlapping parent nodes . "

I bet you know some posh expressions for *wanker*

Get a life mate ;O)