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

[Rich]

TZK,

I think your basically correct in what you say, though, there are certain points that should be clarified.

 

Einstein was firstly concerned with the physical world, and his comment was in regards to a correct understanding of the underlying mechanics of physical reality. His reference to God I think was a bit "tongue in cheek", a wry way of making the point that with probability even a being such as God could not know or control all of reality. This point has been actually made more significant since the arrival of the Big Bang theory, since the initial singularity from which all physical reality sprang was of such a size that quantum probability dominated, and thus the outcome of the Big Bang was completely unpredictable. It has been proposed by some that because of this there may have had to have been billions or trillions or even more big bangs before one of them produced a Universe such as ours. This then leads to the issue of Occum's razor, which states, "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best". This was used to support the probability interpretation over a hidden variable interpretation (determinism), as it was argued that a hidden variable was an unnecessary complication. While this might be true for the more limited scale of inquiry to which quantum mechanics was originally applied, on wider scales such as the big bang and a unified field theory, it does not seem to apply, as quantum mechanics seems to lead to insurmountable complications. Of course, to prove that a hidden variable approach is better, one must come up with one that works in areas that quantum mechanics doesn't, or one that at least offers a simpler solution than any possible quantum solution in these areas. Then either the caveat "all things being equal" would no longer apply, since the probability approach would not produce equal results, or the simplicity condition would apply, since while in certain areas the probability approach would be simpler, as an all encompassing theory, the hidden variable solution would be the simpler. I believe this argument for simplicity of probability in regards to descriptions of physical reality has really undermined the pursuit of an overall unifying theory because in this area probability is a dead end, and the hidden variable approach is ignored.

 

Another problem is that many attempt to apply the probability concepts of physics to other scientific fields and philosophy, and in the process they can ignore Occum's razor, as the solutions they come up with are either insufficient or simplistic. An example is the idea that if there is a God and he were to create the Universe according to quantum principles, he would need to simply create Universes repeatedly until he got the one he wanted. Of course, he couldn't know if it's the one he wants until it's well into it's existence, if then. If there is a God I doubt he’d be so inefficient in his planning.

 

Another point that should be clarified is that physical determinism does not necessarily mean that human being’s choices are predetermined. This is only true if one assumes that human beings are only the sum of there physical parts; that there is no metaphysical or non-measurable physical component, such as a soul for example, in their make-up, or, if there is a metaphysical component, it is also determined. It is possible though to have a determined physical reality and a non-determined, non-probalistic, metaphysical component to human beings. If there is a non-determined free choice component to human beings actions, probability ultimately undermines free choice at least to some degree because when we choose to manipulate physical reality we are limited in our knowledge of the outcome. We are thus left with educated guesses, which might be good enough in some cases, but not so good in others.

 

Rich

[TZK]

TZK,

I think your basically correct in what you say, though, there are certain points that should be clarified.

 

Einstein was firstly concerned with the physical world, and his comment was in regards to a correct understanding of the underlying mechanics of physical reality. His reference to God I think was a bit "tongue in cheek", a wry way of making the point that with probability even a being such as God could not know or control all of reality. This point has been actually made more significant since the arrival of the Big Bang theory, since the initial singularity from which all physical reality sprang was of such a size that quantum probability dominated, and thus the outcome of the Big Bang was completely unpredictable. It has been proposed by some that because of this there may have had to have been billions or trillions or even more big bangs before one of them produced a Universe such as ours. This then leads to the issue of Occum's razor, which states, "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best". This was used to support the probability interpretation over a hidden variable interpretation (determinism), as it was argued that a hidden variable was an unnecessary complication. While this might be true for the more limited scale of inquiry to which quantum mechanics was originally applied, on wider scales such as the big bang and a unified field theory, it does not seem to apply, as quantum mechanics seems to lead to insurmountable complications. Of course, to prove that a hidden variable approach is better, one must come up with one that works in areas that quantum mechanics doesn't, or one that at least offers a simpler solution than any possible quantum solution in these areas. Then either the caveat "all things being equal" would no longer apply, since the probability approach would not produce equal results, or the simplicity condition would apply, since while in certain areas the probability approach would be simpler, as an all encompassing theory, the hidden variable solution would be the simpler. I believe this argument for simplicity of probability in regards to descriptions of physical reality has really undermined the pursuit of an overall unifying theory because in this area probability is a dead end, and the hidden variable approach is ignored.

 

Another problem is that many attempt to apply the probability concepts of physics to other scientific fields and philosophy, and in the process they can ignore Occum's razor, as the solutions they come up with are either insufficient or simplistic. An example is the idea that if there is a God and he were to create the Universe according to quantum principles, he would need to simply create Universes repeatedly until he got the one he wanted. Of course, he couldn't know if it's the one he wants until it's well into it's existence, if then. If there is a God I doubt he’d be so inefficient in his planning.

 

Rich

 

Occam's razor is basically useless since everyone always believes the explanation they already believe to be simplest. The best version of it that someone tried to reason out is really better stated as something like minimalism or reductionism.

 

But the purpose of such concepts is to promote apathy and avoidance of models which require extra assumptions not to provide evidence against them. Trying to apply that to something like determinism vs quantum probability doesn't really do much. If you can't find or calculate all the variables, then you have to use probability anyways in any situation.

 

It is therefore fine to not concern yourself with a deterministic quantum theory, yet this says nothing of it's actual existence. Also, skepticism allows for there to be something more complicated than an issue of hidden variables and yet have determinism preserved. Perhaps future events influence past events in such a way that it is hard or impossible for us to observe it. Yet an overall chain of cause and effect would be possible in such a case. You might categorize something like that as locality being violated, but I tend to think of it more as the fact that there can be assumptions you made that you don't even know you made until they are violated.

 

The point is, determinism is relevant to things outside of science (like morality), and is supported by just about everything else. The apathy towards it in the realm of quantum physics doesn't work against things like:

 

Determinism applies to everything else

 

There are plenty of very complex systems of all different kinds in which causes and effects are hard to see and yet determinism still exists

 

The world, even Quantum physics, doesn't seem to make sense without determinism.

 

The concept of probability fundamentally requires determinism even if the people using it do not understand that.

 

I believe that the statement God doesn't play dice was meant to preserve determinism for purposes of morality. This is important to do to people who do not believe in free will. As far as your soul section, I have nothing to say on that as I wish to avoid such thoughts despite my apathy towards them.

 

Every choice someone makes, I can see a reason for it and even a reason for why they chose that instead of another possible choice.

[Rich]

TZK,

 

I don’t think that everyone believes that their explanation is the simplest possible, though they may belief that it is simplest possible at the time which produces sufficient results. I’d say that everyone is looking for best solutions, whether they are simple or not, though simplicity is an important goal for many for a variety of reasons.

 

The phrase “all things being equal” in the beginning of Occum’s razor is suppose to eliminate explanations that sacrifice results for simplicity. According to the razor, it is perfectly acceptable to add complications if this produces better results. Einstein expressed this as “solutions should be simple, but not too simple“.

One reason for the desire for simplicity is to demonstrate an underlying unity in the laws of physics, this revealing the unified nature of all physical reality. This common nature is believed by most to have existed in the initial singularity, but this unity has not yet been realized in our understanding of the present conditions of physical forces. There has been though, great success in explaining most physical processes and their unified character, and this success has been grounded in the goal for the simplest possible adequate explanations. This to me, and many others, is the proof of the value of Occum’s razor in physics.

 

Personally, I don’t believe that complete unification of physical laws can be achieved without discovering the “hidden variable” . Like Einstein, I believe that something is missing in quantum theory, and that the belief that a hidden variable doesn’t exist is rooted in the epistemology of quantum theory. Your statement about the possibility that the future might affect the present is in fact a concept I’ve been working on; that “time accelerated” aspects of particles are in fact the hidden variable. They act as “potentials” for future positions. That they are “time accelerated” overcomes the main perceived problem with hidden variable theories, which is the need for almost instantaneous communication between distant “entangled particles”, without locality being violated. This concept added to David Bohm’s hidden variable interpretation of quantum theory I think provides a good basis for a viable hidden variable theory, and the eventual development of a unified field theory.

 

Like Einstein, I believe that the unification of physics laws will lead to an understanding of the unified nature of all knowledge, and though I’m not sure exactly what this meant to him, for me I see it as leading to a complete understanding of how the human mind interfaces with physical reality (something David Bohm worked on) and also how physical reality interfaces with, and even requires the existence of, metaphysical reality.

While by nature it might not be possible to experimentally prove either of these connections, I believe it is possible to demonstrate the connections logically and possibly even mathematically, and this can inspire people to seek proof for themselves experientially, which I personally am sure is possible.

 

As far as the deterministic nature of macro systems, I agree this is generally true to a great degree. However, this doesn’t mean that a non-probabilistic nature for quantum phenomena is not in some unknown way altering reality in either a macro manner or quantum level manner, or both. One thing for sure is that the belief in a probabilistic nature for quantum phenomena influences the world view of many people, and this leads these people, who themselves can be considered to be a macro-system, to alter reality in particular ways, even if it is just in their thought processes and brain activity.

 

 

Rich

[Qfwfq]

Recent posts were not really on this topic, all points about soul and free will have become a new thread in Philosophy and Humanities.

[LaurieAG]

Hello TZK,

 

I believe that the statement God doesn't play dice was meant to preserve determinism for purposes of morality. This is important to do to people who do not believe in free will. As far as your soul section, I have nothing to say on that as I wish to avoid such thoughts despite my apathy towards them.

 

Every choice someone makes, I can see a reason for it and even a reason for why they chose that instead of another possible choice.

 

There may be even more in depth reasons and purposes to the statement.

 

DEUS NOLI/NOLITE ALEA (god doesn't play dice)

 

NOLI/NOLITE are latin for 'doesn't' (one with infinity and one without infinity)

 

Alternatively, to complete the couplet.

 

MODO/POSSE SCIRE MISCERE (but can throw/toss (them))

 

MODO/POSSE are latin for 'but' (one with infinity and one without)

 

Why does Latin have such intricate distinctions?

[Darrell]

My understanding of "God does not play dice" is that Einstein was saying everything is calculable. There is no chance and provided every possible variable and attribute is considered the outcome is predictable...God does not exist, the laws of physics determine the outcome not some "Superior" being.