Re: OT: Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...

Sorry if this shows up twice. Over 12 hours ago I posted, but I don't
see it yet.

On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I figured I'd hear from you:-)

On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:37 am, gen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
planet.

or by a God that the bible describes ...

Consider this well known verse, Ecclesiastes 3:1:

"For everything there is a reason, a time for every matter under
heaven."

Now, Mr. marblecliff-genius, go study the various translations or that
scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
history of your Holy Book.

Now, how does that scripture conflict with the belief in free-will?
How about cause-and-effect? How about the Big-Bang? Can you name one
thing that exists that has no past and no reason for it's current
state? Have you considered that the force which binds energy together
to form a quark is the same force that binds together all things in
the universe, and if the Big Bang did happen (whether God-made or

Say what? Energy that binds together to form a quark? We are not at
that level of understanding yet, I don't think.


I presume you mean we haven't yet dissected a quark in the lab? Ok.

Most accept that M = E / C**2

Most accept that at some level, whether quark (or sub-quark?), there
is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
There are some who believe that the force binding that energy is the
universal force. The effects of distance, density and relative motion
we observe as EMFand gravity.

Many search for exotic answers and conjure strings and membranes and
folded dimensions and then something else to explain why those don't
quite explain reality.

not), that bit of energy is now in the only place that it could be
because of where it was then the BB happened?

Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no

Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
radioactive substance like uranium. It will emit alpha particles
(which are really Helium nuclei). There is no way to tell which atom
will be the next to emit an alpha particle. It is random, but the
randomness obeys the statisctics forced upon it by its wave function.



Let's establish what I mean by random. A random event cannot be
predicted or reproduced. It has no cause. Events can appear to be
random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
*every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
predict every outcome. If we could control those variables, we could
control the outcome. A small change in one variable can often cause a
large change in the result. If we aren't aware of that variable, we
see random. This defines a "chaotic" system.

To accept an event as "random", one must believe that *all* event
variables have been accounted for, yet the result has occurred counter
to their influence.
..
Understanding that, one can adjust the focus of observation and use
chaotic results as random data. Like we write & use a random number
generator program knowing that the results are not truly random; just
close enough for our purposes.

Another example: Light going through glass. Maybe 4 percent of the
light is reflected -- 96% is transmitted. But light is made of
photons. So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass,
approx. 40 will be refelcted. Sometimes it may be 36 reflected. Other
times it may be 42, but the long term average will be 40. Then the
question becomes: Which photons will be reflected?

Suppose one photon travles toward the glass. Will it go through or be
reflected. There is no way to tell. It is random.

Observe at the scale of the photon and particles in the glass and see
that each photon strikes differently. See the motion of atomic /
subatomic particles in the glass. Follow a particle and watch as a
photo strikes it. The reactions are not random. We just can't follow
all of the variables. Again, it's our inability to completely observe
the event that causes it to seem random.

Even Nature hereself
doesn't know until it happens. See the Feynman video part I for more
details. (www.feynman.com)


Well, I don't think nature has an ego or a conscious mind, but it does
have a near infinite number of variables.

Feynman is just one of the great thinkers I enjoy. You mean the QED
lectures from '79? I'll try to set aside some time to watch them, but
I don't know when that'll be. I'm sure I must have read some excerpts.
I wonder how his ideas might have grown since 1988.

The thing about dead scientists (well, aside from the obvious;-) is
they aren't around anymore to argue a point or to adjust their point
of view. We can stand on their shoulders, but they can't climb up on
ours.

Oh, and quantum mechanics has this problem of not being strictly
causal. This is what bothered Einstein so much about QM (which he
himself made major contributions to in its early days!). As a result
he said, "God does not play dice." Well, "He" does, and sometimes "He"
throws them where you can't see them.


Einstein didn't believe in random, either.

And amazingly enough, due to Ehrenfest's theroem, quantum mechanics
predicts good old classical mechanics (Newtonian mechanics if you
prefer, or our regular familiar world) at the macroscopic level.

As Feynman says, the rules of quantum mechanics are so screwy, you
can't believe them. But quantum mechanics is the most amazingly
successful theory of which I am aware.


Ok, but it's the QM thinking that accepts some events as magic
(random) and without cause that I have a problem with.


Not that any of this gives any credence to Bob's posts!

random.



You say random, I say chaotic ;-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...
    ... I am not that familiar with chaos theory, but quantum mechanics ... Feynman once put it, "protects" QM. ... So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: OT: Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...
    ... I am not that familiar with chaos theory, but quantum mechanics ... Feynman once put it, "protects" QM. ... So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Photon bend another photon
    ... |> right through glass too, ... | Actually billiard balls can pass thru glass and photons cannot! ... evidence of energy loss in that process. ... what he called fictitious particles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The "Amplitude" of a photon???????
    ... Photons do not behave like Newtonian corpuscles. ... You have to first visualize the wave in quantum mechanics ... Quantum mechanics predicts that the amplitude of a wave is varies ... particles there are. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...
    ... how does that scripture conflict with the belief in free-will? ... Quantum mechanics is full of random events. ... Another example: Light going through glass. ... So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass, ...
    (comp.os.vms)