God doesn't play dice.....meaning

[Guadalupe]

From what I understand Einstein was refering to the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics when he said "God doesn't play dice".

Actually I'm not sure I understand at all.

What was he refering to when he said "God doesn't play dice".

Was he an Atheist?

 

KiZzI :confused:

 

 

 

Kizzi, it may be possible, that Albert Einstein believed at one time or another, that if God were to play dice the universe, would mean that the God of our universe, is not all knowing and all seeing, but a god, with a small “g”, of chaos and doom, a god that would gamble with our lives and with our universe by leaving it all up to chance rather than by his own will. :surprise:

[Qfwfq]

And yet... he does!

[Kriminal99]

He was claiming that there was some deterministic mechanical system that governed quantum mechanics, even if we have no way of deducing its nature. Where as some quantum theorists claim that quantum mechanics is random in a way we can't understand.

 

I think Einstein was right. Its really easy to create a situation thats really hard to understand if you take a complicated probability distribution and then add the facts that A) You can only sample the variable at certain times ;) When you sample may be correlated with what result you get C) When you sample it could effect future results

 

Taking into consideration these factors could we reproduce something similar to quantum mechanics using a distribution we know about?

 

Its kind of a funny statement that Einstein made, because the outcome of rolling a pair of dice is completely deterministic. Its just that such a small change in the input factors (where you place the dice etc) causes such a large change in the outcome that without fixing a lot of factors each outcome is equally likely. Of course he knew that and it was just some kind of funny metaphor.

[UV-gap]

When the observer gets close to a particle/wave it turns into, or vanishes into, a probability-cloud.

 

The observer can thus never pin down or catch a particle because the closer you get the better the particle vanishes into a probability-cloud. That is why physics needs its Uncertainty Principle.

The story doesn't end there: the Uncertainty Principle tells us that particles can vanish into, and then also suddenly and appear out of, nowhere at any TOTALLY unpredictable time -- EXACTLY LIKE THOUGHTS.

 

Particles thus work exactly like thoughts that you also can never catch, or predict.

 

Physics tells us the same story with light: the faster you go to catch light the more obvious it gets that you are stationary.

 

Einstein's problem is that he needed a god to explain physics, and god is exactly like a particle, and physics, just a thought, like dice and gambling.

[perplexity]

Its kind of a funny statement that Einstein made, because the outcome of rolling a pair of dice is completely deterministic. Its just that such a small change in the input factors (where you place the dice etc) causes such a large change in the outcome that without fixing a lot of factors each outcome is equally likely....

But only in so far as you believe in determinism.

 

Is free will determined, the factor of the effect of the person who throws the dice?

 

When God throws the dice, I suspect that he cheats.

 

Particles thus work exactly like thoughts that you also can never catch, or predict.

which is because that is what the particles are, particles of thought, never to be caught or predicted.

 

-- RH.

[Kriminal99]

IMO...

 

 

Determinism could never be disproven.

 

For every belief there is a model of the entire universe including all currently known information and some unkown information that is coherent and would disprove the belief. This is global skepticism, the problem with induction etc reworded. That means, for example, all the info we think we have on quantum mechanics could be a misinterpretation based on some correlation between what we see and the fact that we are looking using currently available methods.

 

The claim that certain information about a particle cannot be known at the same time is both a violation of the above principle and not a disproof a determinism.

 

The former because although it may be true for all currently available methods of obtaining knowledge of said states, there may be a method that does not have this problem.

 

The latter because even if there was never any way for a consious entity to know the attributes of a particle without affecting it, that does not mean that they do not have set states and behave according to set rules that dictate that such is the case.

[perplexity]

Determinism could never be disproven.

Nor proven.

 

 

For every belief there is a model of the entire universe including all currently known information and some unkown information that is coherent and would disprove the belief.

If that is what you believe, I wonder what sort of incoherent information would make you think twice about it.

 

This is global skepticism, the problem with induction etc reworded. That means, for example, all the info we think we have on quantum mechanics could be a misinterpretation based on some correlation between what we see and the fact that we are looking using currently available methods.

All the info we think we have could also be a representation, a projection of the available method.

 

Perception is a process of pattern recognition.

Without an established database of patterns to recognise, there is no perception.

 

 

The claim that certain information about a particle cannot be known at the same time is both a violation of the above principle and not a disproof a determinism.

Seeing no disproof of determism to invoke, I would merely suggest that the mind determines, or assists at least to do so.

 

The former because although it may be true for all currently available methods of obtaining knowledge of said states, there may be a method that does not have this problem.

That sounds like Nirvana. :Alien:

 

The latter because even if there was never any way for a consious entity to know the attributes of a particle without affecting it, that does not mean that they do not have set states and behave according to set rules that dictate that such is the case.

The propensity of the human mind to set the state, or toward the set state, is quite remarkable, the entropy of thought.

 

--- RH.

[Kriminal99]

Nor proven.

 

If that is what you believe, I wonder what sort of incoherent information would make you think twice about it.

 

All the info we think we have could also be a representation, a projection of the available method.

 

Perception is a process of pattern recognition.

Without an established database of patterns to recognise, there is no perception.

 

Seeing no disproof of determism to invoke, I would merely suggest that the mind determines, or assists at least to do so.

 

That sounds like Nirvana. :omg:

 

The propensity of the human mind to set the state, or toward the set state, is quite remarkable, the entropy of thought.

 

--- RH.

 

Agreed that it cannot be proven or disproven. But the question is which is more likely. Almost everything in our lives points to determinism, and in many ways it doesn't even make sense to consider a world without determinism. Our thinking seems to be contingent on determinism. Some information in quantum physics, when looked at a certain way, seems to indicate to some that determinism is false. Well, I am more inclined to think that someone just didn't realize an alternate explanation for why they see what they see regarding quantum mechanics.

 

Or in other words, we have had many more opportunities across many more enviornments to disprove determinism than we have had to disprove non-determinism.

 

The "coherent argument" statement is just a rewording of the problem with induction. Your argument is sort of like a rewording of the anti - argument from ignorance response to the problem of induction. The answer to the anti-argument from ignorance response is that I can only reason based on my experience, and all my experience, when carefully reasoned upon, gives me no cause to believe that everyone else in the world are not subject to the same problems with induction as I.

 

The coherent model of the universe which defeats everything that I beleive is for example one where an evil deciever has only made me think that I have experienced what I have but the real world is totally different. Until I have any evidence to suggest this is the case, I must simply ignore the possibility.

[perplexity]

Agreed that it cannot be proven or disproven. But the question is which is more likely. Almost everything in our lives points to determinism, and in many ways it doesn't even make sense to consider a world without determinism.

Yes, in retrospect that does of course appear to be the case, but it is crucially important to understand why.

The retrospect we see is the retrospect that is already chosen, and therefore appears to be consistent to itself.

It is consistent with the perception that caused the choice. That perception becomes the reality, and because that perception determined the choice, it appears to be consistent with determinism.

That would not be to say though, that an alternative perception of previous events would not have been possible at the time.

 

Or in other words, we have had many more opportunities across many more enviornments to disprove determinism than we have had to disprove non-determinism.

To prove a free choice between two options you would have to make two choices at once in order to compare the two resultant realities. As soon as you've made the choice, the perception that caused the choice then becomes the supposed reality said to determine it, because free will operates as a matter of perception rather than an issue of action.

 

....and all my experience, when carefully reasoned upon, gives me no cause to believe that everyone else in the world are not subject to the same problems with induction as I.

For as long as we fail to own our will to affect, the fear of induction persists.

 

The coherent model of the universe which defeats everything that I beleive is for example one where an evil deciever has only made me think that I have experienced what I have but the real world is totally different. Until I have any evidence to suggest this is the case, I must simply ignore the possibility.

 

In my experience the most frequently ignored possibility is that of self deception.

 

Anyway, thanks for illustrating my point about the choice of perception.

 

--- RH.

[ughaibu]

Determinism amounts to an unwillingness to accept human limitations, anyone in doubt of human limitations is probably capable of devising an experiment that will exceed their limitations. In short, humans can not know the full story, neither can they understand it.

[CraigD]

I have a suspicion that attempting to link “human free will” with the nature of physical reality leads to a philosophical dead end.

 

In ”A pragmatic conception of free will”, I opined that the definition of free will most appropriate for common use doesn’t depend on the universe being mechanically deterministic or not, but on the practical ability to predict future actions, and opinion I continue to hold.

[HydrogenBond]

God doesn't play dice with the universe. I always thought that meant that Einstein saw the universe as being logically order instead of randomly orderred. If one looks at quantum physics it uses a random/statisitcal approach to the universe, but is unable to integrate all the forces of nature. It is a good correlation, but as Einstein sensed, it would fall short of the blue ribbon because nature is rational and not random. Nobody listened and decades were spent barking up the wrong tree.

 

The difference between rational and random is philosophical. Both can be used to describe the universe. Random has the advantage of being a black box approach that doesn't require logical understanding. Rational requires a logical understanding and requires working outside the black box. The latter is much harder, which is why most scientists prefer a noncausual or correlation approach.

 

Back in the middle ages before much was known about life, it was thought that life could spontaneously generate out of nothing. This pre-science approach was loosely based on the black box. With modern science life becomes more logical so when maggots form on meat or not, it is because of a logical explanation. Backbox science dates back to alchemy and it still clouded by rational ignorance.

[ughaibu]

Einstein probably said "I'd prefer ham rather than cheese", so what if he said "god doesn't play dice"? This discussion is not Einstein's responsibility.

[CraigD]

God doesn't play dice with the universe. I always thought that meant that Einstein saw the universe as being logically order instead of randomly orderred. If one looks at quantum physics it uses a random/statisitcal approach to the universe, but is unable to integrate all the forces of nature. It is a good correlation, but as Einstein sensed, it would fall short of the blue ribbon because nature is rational and not random.

I believe this is an excellent summary of the question at hand.

Nobody listened and decades were spent barking up the wrong tree.

I disagree. Many people, not the least of them Einstein and his collaborators, applied considerable time and skill in an attempt to validate local realism and invalidate quantum mechanics, a compelling result being Bell's theorem, which in 1964 provided testable predictions to invalidate one or the other. Although no currently know formalism is able to describe every possible “Bell test experiment”, so one can not with complete certainly consider the question settled, in the decades since they were proposed, many Bell test experiments have validated QM, none local realism.

 

It’s important, I think, to note that the invalidation of local realism doesn’t mean that no deterministic theory is possible. Many, perhaps most theoretical physicists are, like Eisntein, dissatisfied with the lack of a deterministic “theory of everything”, and actively focused on finding one. It appears, however, to be a very difficult problem.

[perplexity]

....Many, perhaps most theoretical physicists are, like Eisntein, dissatisfied with the lack of a deterministic “theory of everything”, and actively focused on finding one. It appears, however, to be a very difficult problem.

In which case he was obviously not determined enough.

 

--- RH.

[InfiniteNow]

In which case he was obviously not determined enough.

That, or perhaps his death came prior to that determination bearing fruit. :shrug:

 

 

Cheers. :cocktail:

[Kriminal99]

Yes, in retrospect that does of course appear to be the case, but it is crucially important to understand why.

The retrospect we see is the retrospect that is already chosen, and therefore appears to be consistent to itself.

It is consistent with the perception that caused the choice. That perception becomes the reality, and because that perception determined the choice, it appears to be consistent with determinism.

That would not be to say though, that an alternative perception of previous events would not have been possible at the time.

 

 

To prove a free choice between two options you would have to make two choices at once in order to compare the two resultant realities. As soon as you've made the choice, the perception that caused the choice then becomes the supposed reality said to determine it, because free will operates as a matter of perception rather than an issue of action.

 

 

For as long as we fail to own our will to affect, the fear of induction persists.

 

 

 

In my experience the most frequently ignored possibility is that of self deception.

 

Anyway, thanks for illustrating my point about the choice of perception.

 

--- RH.

 

It is simple enough to disprove your main claim. Just watch SOMEONE ELSE go about their daily buisness and see how predictable their actions are. If you can predict people's future responses to various situations with decent accuracy that doesn't leave much room for free will does it? You might gripe that a person's ability to predict another's behavior is not perfect, but there are plenty of things I can altogether rule out that the person will do and I can predict what he will do with good accuracy. If someone throws a cheeseburger at another's head in a resturaunt, the person isn't going to go buy a bicycle at walmart and ride it to china. He might if I were arguing with him about free will, in which case he would do it to try to prove a point.