Death penalty

[Goodspeed]

Sorry guys haven't had time to reply properly

@umeu That's why I asked him to elaborate using logic instead of calling every process physicists can't explain "illogical".
[quote source="/post/39622/thread" timestamp="1439654585" author="@jerom"][quote source="/post/39590/thread" timestamp="1439650083" author="@calmyourtits"]Still don't see anything that contradicts logic.[/quote]if you were to stop time at a certain moment, and look at whatd be going on, there would be one observer living in a world where a door is closed and a door is opened, while anothet observer could be seeing both doors opened. These two worlds are completely incompatable with eachother. That, in my eyes, defies logic.[/quote]No. It's the same world, from 2 different perspectives.

[quote source="/post/39603/thread" timestamp="1439651842" author="@frycookofdoom"][quote source="/post/39556/thread" timestamp="1439646649" author="@calmyourtits"]So let's simplify
Say there is a process which returns a number from 0 to 10, randomly. That's essentially what's happening right?
First of all, are you saying this is truly random and genuinely unpredictable even for a theoretical AI which had all of the relevant information in existence and understood the process perfectly? I'm assuming your answer to this is yes.

Then this process, call it process A, logically equals all of those values. After all there is no way to describe using any language the difference between, for example, process A resulting in 0 and A resulting in 1
A = 0
A = 1
A = 2
A = 3
A = 0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=10
0 = 10?
Essentially all of the results are equal to each other, it's not possible to describe the difference because there is none. Nothing changed in the system, so logically there cannot be an event that does this.
Therefore it's not possible for something to happen which results in a truly random outcome.
[/quote]That's not essentially what's happening. The processes taking place aren't purely random'[/quote]Then where do you disagree? Let me get something straight here: You're saying that there is a process which returns a random value, right? But it's still deterministic?
Then how is it random?
I'll give you 2 choices just so I'm clear on where you stand:
1. The result of the process is truly random, meaning theoretically unpredictable and hence non-deterministic.
2. The result of the process is random from the human perspective, due to incomplete information or lack of the means to measure the process entirely.

Let me try to clarify by using your example. Say that there really is a computer which returns a value between 0 and 10 with equal likelihood, and in a way that is truly unpredictable. In one scenario, we execute the process to find that the computer returns a value of 1. In a second scenario, we do so again and this time it returns a value of 2. You seem to think that this must mean 1 = 2, since in both cases the underlying cause' a specific probabilistic computer process' was exactly the same, and that therefore randomness cannot be possible. The problem here is your decision to assume that in the first scenario, 1 is equal to the underlying process, and that 2 is equal to the same process in the second scenario. This is like saying that an explosion is equal to gunpowder, or that the sensation of the colour red is equal to the photons that stimulate it. The outcome of a process is different to its cause, and it makes no sense trying to say otherwise.

I don't think that's a problem but either way, let's get rid of it for the sake of argument. I'll rephrase:
A results in 1
A results in 2
A results in 3
In math, you would write this as:
A = 1
A = 2
A = 3
The point here is that there is no reason for A to result in 1, and there is no reason why it would be 2, or 3 etc. It is all of these results at the same time, which means the results must equal each other which makes a lot of sense because they are the result of an identical system without external influence.

Also, it's not true that the system didn't change. An act of observation interfered with the process and forced the random outcome to reveal itself. That would be the mainstream interpretation of a quantum event, at least' the determinist view that I've been laying out in this thread would probably say that the system could only have been dynamic in the first place in order to generate any kind of result, and that it was the presence of a random variable that provided this perpetual change. A system with an unstable variable that fluctuates with time is hardly static in the sense in which you define it.

I know the system changed in our theoretical example. I'm saying that there is no way it could have, logically.

And finally, it is indeed possible to use language to describe the difference between two different outcomes of a random process. You just did it. I just did it. If it wasn't possible, we wouldn't be talking about it.

No I didn't. I described it and ran into logical fallacies, as mentioned.
Feel free to describe it to me without landing on the inevitable outcome that all of the results equal each other.

But answer my first question first. I still don't know what it is you're arguing, and it feels like we actually agree.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Then where do you disagree? Let me get something straight here: You''re saying that there is a process which returns a random value, right? But it''s still deterministic?
Then how is it random?
I''ll give you 2 choices just so I''m clear on where you stand:
1. The result of the process is truly random, meaning theoretically unpredictable and hence non-deterministic.
2. The result of the process is random from the human perspective, due to incomplete information or lack of the means to measure the process entirely.

I''ll go for option 3. The result of the process is truly random, meaning theoretically unpredictable, but it is also deterministic.

The process is unpredictable because the initial positions of particles cannot be known. This has nothing to do with faulty equipment or flawed experimental methods. It is theoretically impossible, within the limits of Bohmian mechanics, to precisely define the initial positions of the particles in a system. Instead their distribution has to be summarized according to a probabilistic function, and this is what leads to the unpredictable results. The presence of randomness is essential, or else the theory would not hold up against experimental data. Our understanding of science does not currently provide us with a way around this.

The theory is still deterministic' every outcome is directly linked to its antecedent cause by an unbreakable chain of causality, and there is no spontaneous disruption taking place in the midst of events. But it is also random, insofar as its results are unpredictable, and reveal no discernible pattern. In strict terms, it is better to call this stochastic rather than random, although the choice of words is irrelevant since what we''re discussing is whether the universe can theoretically be considered both unpredictable and deterministic - and Bohmian mechanics is resounding proof that it can.

I don''t think that''s a problem but either way, let''s get rid of it for the sake of argument. I''ll rephrase:
A results in 1
A results in 2
A results in 3
In math, you would write this as:
A = 1
A = 2
A = 3
The point here is that there is no reason for A to result in 1, and there is no reason why it would be 2, or 3 etc. It is all of these results at the same time, which means the results must equal each other which makes a lot of sense because they are the result of an identical system without external influence.

See above.

I know the system changed in our theoretical example. I''m saying that there is no way it could have, logically.

Why not?

No I didn''t. I described it and ran into logical fallacies, as mentioned.
Feel free to describe it to me without landing on the inevitable outcome that all of the results equal each other.

Of course you did. The fact that we are even having this discussion shows that it falls perfectly within the bounds of language. If we couldn''t use language to describe it, we wouldn''t be able to talk about it.

[momuuu]

If A results in an answer, that doesnt mean A is the answer. It just means that A results in the answer after something happens to it.

So A => 1
Or A => 2
Etc.

Which means the => isnt a regular manipulation but is one that includes randomness. Which definitely isnt impossible, since it is what we are observing.

Claimimg that it is surely wrong is, to me, similair to claiming that god surely does or does not exist. Especially with this external influence that you mention.

[momuuu]

I think GoodSpeed needs to read some on the particle-wave duality.

Jup, he most definitely does. Its hard to call something wrong if you don''t even understand it.

[Jam]

I think GoodSpeed needs to read some on the particle-wave duality.

Jup, he most definitely does. Its hard to call something wrong if you dont even understand it.

He should definitely watch the movie What The Bleep Do We Know.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Looks like gs is back to being a crossbowmen.

[evilcheadar]

Looks like gs is back to being a crossbowmen.

Your gonna get roasted for bumping this old ass thread.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Looks like gs is back to being a crossbowmen.

Your gonna get roasted for bumping this old ass thread.

August was three months ago. Thats a quarter of a year. Its been nearly a quarter of a year since I last posted in this thread. WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF :eyespopping:

[evilcheadar]

Your gonna get roasted for bumping this old ass thread.

August was three months ago. Thats a quarter of a year. Its been nearly a quarter of a year since I last posted in this thread. WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF? :eyespopping:

Hey well Im just sayin the authorities came after me for such conduct .

[fightinfrenchman]

August was three months ago. Thats a quarter of a year. Its been nearly a quarter of a year since I last posted in this thread. WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF? :eyespopping:

Hey well Im just sayin the authorities came after me for such conduct .

Me as well. The punishment I receievd made me change my ways and now I want to go into law enforcement myself