Will natural wonders ever stop

exchemist said:
I decline to believe that anything involving Rupert Sheldrake will shed light on anything.
Click to expand...
Dinosaur said:
From Stranger Post 31The classical world of our senses is built on a quantum level based on probabilistic laws.

Determinism which was the mainstream view of physicists prior to circa 1900-1920 has been junked by modern physicists.

If it were possible to rewind the universe to a pre-existing state, it would not repeat our current history. I would not expect it to even be close.

BTW: I do not consider Rupert Sheldrake to be a good source of valid information.
Click to expand...
Please note that Sheldrake was the questioner. David Bohm made the declarative statements, i.e Bohmian Mechanics, not Sheldrakian mechanics.
And fundamental to Bohmian Mechanics is the proposition of "hidden varablies" , i.e. stochastic (probabilistic).
 
Write4U said:
Please note that Sheldrake was the questioner. David Bohm made the declarative statements, i.e Bohmian Mechanics, not Sheldrakian mechanics.
And fundamental to Bohmian Mechanics is the proposition of "hidden varablies" , i.e. stochastic (probabilistic).
Click to expand...
To date there is no successful hidden variable theory.
 
exchemist said:
To date there is no successful hidden variable theory.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, there are some viable candidates. The problem is that they need more information than what has become "standard" cosmological physics. But if the additional information required can be found, it would form a TOE, as it would account for both QM and GR as compatible facets of the Wholeness, which currently is the great stumbling block.
 
Write4U said:
As I understand it, there are some viable candidates. The problem is that they need more information than what has become "standard" cosmological physics. But if the additional information required can be found, it would form a TOE, as it would account for both QM and GR as compatible facets of the Wholeness, which currently is the great stumbling block.
Click to expand...
What candidates? Bohm himself did not propose his theory as a real one: he just wanted to show that in principle there was nothing ruling out non-local hidden variable theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

When you start talking about "the Wholeness", you appear to be running up the Jolly Roger and revealing a religious agenda.
 
exchemist said:
What candidates? Bohm himself did not propose his theory as a real one: he just wanted to show that in principle there was nothing ruling out non-local hidden variable theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

When you start talking about "the Wholeness", you appear to be running up the Jolly Roger and revealing a religious agenda.
Click to expand...
Does this count?
In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger’s equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. The latter evolve according to the “guiding equation”, which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function......................
Click to expand...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
 
The following does not seem to belong in this discussion.

From Write4U Post 32
some people are brilliant mathematicians , but can't waltz.
Click to expand...
Can’t should be replaced by don’t or never learned.

BTW: I suppose there are mathematicians who never learned to waltz & some with physical disabilities preventing them from learning. I believe that any able bodied mathematician could lean to dance.

I and several of my friends are mathematicians as well as being athletic & having social capabilities. I resent the stereotypes of the dumb jock & the nerd with intelligence. ​

It should be noted that prior to circa 1900-1920, mainstream physicists believed that the universe was deterministic, although none believed that humans would ever be able to collect the data & do the calculations required to in detail predict the future & determine the past.

Circa 1920 Quantum theory was accepted as valid (at least better than previous theories) refuting the notion of a deterministic universe.

The classical reality of our senses is built on a quantum level governed by probabilistic laws.​

From WriteU4 Post 26
Is Probability not a form of Determinism? If something is possible and given sufficient time and conditions, the probability has becomes deterministic. Hidden variables exist everywhere, but seem to be mere ripples in a large river of purely deterministic processes.
Click to expand...
From Stranger Post 27
Actually, nothing is probable. Whatever will happen will happen.
Click to expand...

From Stranger Post 31
Every thing is caused. Every thing which exists & every thing which happens is due to what existed & happened before.
Click to expand...
From Stranger Post 27
Actually, nothing is probable. Whatever will happen will happen.
Click to expand...
From Stranger Post 33
Yes. Actually, there are no odds or chances. Those are only our best guesses at what will happen.
Click to expand...
It amazes me that intelligent folks seem to believe in some form of determinism. Consider radioactive decay. Why are various radioactive decay elements given a half life? It is because a whole life cannot be predicted. Given 1024 grams of an element with a half life of 10 minutes.

It is expected that in 10 minutes there will be 512 grams which did not decay; In 20 minutes there will 256 grams which did not decay; in 30 minutes there will be 128 grams which did not decay.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, & walks like a duck, you should believe that it is a duck.

The above indicates that radioactive decay is a probabilistic process. Why Should anyone believe that it is deterministic?​

Radioactive decay is a process known to most folks with some knowledge of physics. It is not the only probabilistic process.




​
 
Dinosaur said:
The following does not seem to belong in this discussion.

From Write4U Post 32Can’t should be replaced by don’t or never learned.

BTW: I suppose there are mathematicians who never learned to waltz & some with physical disabilities preventing them from learning. I believe that any able bodied mathematician could lean to dance.

I and several of my friends are mathematicians as well as being athletic & having social capabilities. I resent the stereotypes of the dumb jock & the nerd with intelligence. ​

It should be noted that prior to circa 1900-1920, mainstream physicists believed that the universe was deterministic, although none believed that humans would ever be able to collect the data & do the calculations required to in detail predict the future & determine the past.

Circa 1920 Quantum theory was accepted as valid (at least better than previous theories) refuting the notion of a deterministic universe.

The classical reality of our senses is built on a quantum level governed by probabilistic laws.​

From WriteU4 Post 26From Stranger Post 27

From Stranger Post 31From Stranger Post 27From Stranger Post 33It amazes me that intelligent folks seem to believe in some form of determinism. Consider radioactive decay. Why are various radioactive decay elements given a half life? It is because a whole life cannot be predicted. Given 1024 grams of an element with a half life of 10 minutes.

It is expected that in 10 minutes there will be 512 grams which did not decay; In 20 minutes there will 256 grams which did not decay; in 30 minutes there will be 128 grams which did not decay.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, & walks like a duck, you should believe that it is a duck.

The above indicates that radioactive decay is a probabilistic process. Why Should anyone believe that it is deterministic?​

Radioactive decay is a process known to most folks with some knowledge of physics. It is not the only probabilistic process.
Click to expand...
^^^
I see no stereotyping. He did not say all mathematicians cannot dance & he did not say all dancers cannot be mathematicians.
Different people have different abilities. Some people can dance & some people can dance very well. Some people can do math & some can do it very well. Some can do both.

Because every thing is caused. If there is ever any thing which is not caused, any thing & every thing might happen without cause any time or all the time.
IF somehow some thing were not caused, it would be impossible to prove it or even know it. IF any thing is not caused, we cannot know any thing else is caused.
Something(s) causes radioactivity to be 1 way at 1 time & place & a different way at another time & place. It is by far not the only thing which does not always happen exactly the same. If we do not yet completely understand it, that does not mean it is not caused.

<>
 
Last edited:
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
^^^
What could cause it to be different?

<>
Click to expand...
There is a much-closer-to-home concept, having to do with evolution here on Earth. AS Stephen J Gould puts it:
If you rewound the Earth back a mere 600 million years, and started it forward again, Earth life would look nothing like it does today.
There were vast differences in creatures that arose after the Pre-Cambrian explosion. Bilateral was one, but there were quadrilateral, rotational and even 10 and 20-sided symmety - some didn't seem to have any symmetry at all - all vying for a spot at the primordial watering hole.

Almost all of them got wiped out, leaving a few to fight over the resources. It was just dumb luck that bilateral symmetry happened to get an advantage and dominate.

Given the same circumstances recurring, there is only a small chance that bilateralism would be the victor next time. The Earth might be populated by intelligent 20-armed starfish.
 
While probabilistic laws might seem to drive evolution, there are some principles governing what designs survive.

A creature with 20 limbs requires a lot of body resources for control & maintenance. I would not expect a vertebrate with that many limbs to evolve anywhere in the universe.

The fact that there are no 6-legged vertebrates strongly implies that it is not favored by evolution. Note the following.
2 extra legs would not enhance running or jumping ability while the extra legs would require a lot of extra body resources: More complex nervous system for control & more body resources for maintenance & repair.

The land creatures with more than four limbs tend to be much smaller than the larger vertebrates & do not have the independent control of individual limbs that most (?all?) vertebrates have.​

Note that two eyes allows accurate depth/distance perception, while additional eyes do not provide significant additional advantages.

A person might a third eye pointing backwards to be an advantage, but for some reason bilateral symmetry seems to have evolved instead.

It is interesting to note that vertebrates which are prey (eg: Deer) have eyes more to the side of their heads, giving more peripheral vision, while predators (including humans) have eyes facing more toward the front. A predators must turn its head to provide the field of view available to a prey animal.

I am not certain, but believe that eye placement for predators provides more accurate depth/distance perception.​
 
Dinosaur said:
The fact that there are no 6-legged vertebrates strongly implies that it is not favored by evolution.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. The fossil evidence does not suggest it ever tried and failed. There were never any 6-legged vertebrate forebears to pursue that path.

IIRC, arthropod development is more prone to accidental replication at the particular point where the body segments are being developed.
A single missed protein might produce 3 segments/leg-pairs - we got insects.
That protein goes another way producing 2 segments but 4 leg-pairs - we got spiders.
Yet another way produces a wild cascade of segments - we got millipedes and centipedes (between 15 and 375 segments - each with a pair of legs).

Vertebrates will have diverged from arthropods before that genetic fragility occurred, so vertebrates never inherited it and therefore cannot make use of it.


I think the lesson to take away from evolution is that there is no such thing as 'retreat and regroup'. The only way is 'forward from here'.


Whales would surely benefit greatly from water-breathing organs. But they have no way to get there, evolutionarily. Evolution doesn't try every path - or even the best paths.

Sure, another 10 million years and they might develop some water-breathing apparatus - but it's as likely to be an adaptation of their baleen plates or their tongue as it is for them to re-evolve gills from scratch.
 
Last edited:
Dinosaur said:
While probabilistic laws might seem to drive evolution, there are some principles governing what designs survive.

A creature with 20 limbs requires a lot of body resources for control & maintenance. I would not expect a vertebrate with that many limbs to evolve anywhere in the universe.

The fact that there are no 6-legged vertebrates strongly implies that it is not favored by evolution. Note the following.
2 extra legs would not enhance running or jumping ability while the extra legs would require a lot of extra body resources: More complex nervous system for control & more body resources for maintenance & repair.

The land creatures with more than four limbs tend to be much smaller than the larger vertebrates & do not have the independent control of individual limbs that most (?all?) vertebrates have.​

Note that two eyes allows accurate depth/distance perception, while additional eyes do not provide significant additional advantages.

A person might a third eye pointing backwards to be an advantage, but for some reason bilateral symmetry seems to have evolved instead.

It is interesting to note that vertebrates which are prey (eg: Deer) have eyes more to the side of their heads, giving more peripheral vision, while predators (including humans) have eyes facing more toward the front. A predators must turn its head to provide the field of view available to a prey animal.

I am not certain, but believe that eye placement for predators provides more accurate depth/distance perception.​
Click to expand...
^^^
You make many undue assumptions based on the study of life on only 1 planet out of perhaps trillions or more planets possibly with life similar to our planet and/or life we may think impossible.
There may be beings with 3 eyes which work better for them than 2 eyes would & who think it impossible for life to evolve with 2 eyes.
At this point, it is reasonable to guess that we have much too small a working sample to make any predictions or even guesses of what life might or might not be like elsewhere.

<>
 
Michael 345 said:
It wasn't the target. The target was difference

:)
Click to expand...
^^^
The post you replied to is a reply to a line of thought that there is something(s) without cause. IF rewinding our universe would not repeat our history, it would be due to cause(s). Something(s) would cause it to be different.

<>
 
From Stranger Post 57
If rewinding our universe would not repeat our history, it would be due to cause(s). Something(s) would cause it to be different.
Click to expand...
You seem to believe in some form of determinism.

As Posted by me in various Threads (Perhaps to this one).
Prior to circa 2000-2020, mainstream physicists believed in a deterministic universe. With the development of Quantum Theory, mainstream belief adopted the notion that the classical universe of our senses is based on a quantum level governed by probabilistic laws.
Click to expand...
 
Write4U said:
At nano scale gold becomes reddish. Silver can take on a whole range of colors dependent on the shape of the silver atom. Copper can be reddish or greenish at nano scale. It's truly amazing how reality changes at extremely small scales.
Click to expand...
It made me to think differently about diluting effect which may even change the property of a substance depending on its quantity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top