Re: The logic of atheism

prabbit1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Ben Goren wrote:
>> prabbit1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>> prabbit1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> Chaos theory only says that due to QM effects.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Chaos Theory has nothing at all to do with quantum
>>>> mechanics. Tossing a handful of marbles into the air over
>>>> rocky terrain is a chaotic system, and there's nothing
>>>> quantum about it.
>>>
>>> From http://order.ph.utexas.edu/chaos/
>
>> Right. Now go search that site for any references to quantum
>> mechanics. Go ahead. I'll wait.
>
> If a webpage made mention of my father giving rise to me but yet
> said nothing about my sister, and another website said he gave
> rise to my sister but yet does not mention me, that doesn't mean
> me and my sister are in no way related. If we have the same
> underlying causes, we ARE related.

You miss the point. There isn't even a hint of relation
between quantum mechanics and chaos theory outside of your
misunderstanding. That woman isn't just not your sister, he's not
even a woman.

>>> Part 3 above is one of the key points of QM; i.e. that we can
>>> never know the position AND momentum exactly and the more
>>> precise one is known, the more error in the other.
>>
>> Heisenberg, yes. Knew him well; his cat liked to play with
>> radioisotopes.
>>
>> He had nothing at all to do with Chaos Theory, though.
>
> From http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
>
> "These uncertainties or imprecisions in the measurements were
> not the fault of the experimenter, said Heisenberg, they were
> inherent in quantum mechanics."
>
> I.e. the uncertainties, the SAME ones mentioned in
> http://order.ph.utexas.edu/chaos/uncertainty.html in the part
> that you snipped, are inherent in QM AND cause chaotic
> situations.

No, these aren't the same uncertainties. Not even in the
slightest. Before going on, please show me even one reference
with the respectability of a high school textbook or better that
even suggests that they may be.

Chaos theory is all about the computational intractability of
complex deterministic system. That is, if you could through
enough computing power at the problem, you could predict it;
however, just like with cryptography, the demand for computing
power increases (at least) exponentially with the complexity of
the system. Sure, you can solve for a couple variables. But
three variables takes you twice as long as two. Four variables
takes twice as long as three. And three hundred thirty-three
variables? It literally takes over a googol times as long as two
variables.

Quantum mechanics is all about the true randomness and uncertainty
surrounding systems that have been empirically proven to be
non-deterministic. Even an infinite amount of computing power
won't do you any good, as there aren't even any variables there to
calculate in the first place.

> "broken two clusters of three balls each" is different than
> "with two pool balls."

Like this. They're different in degree only. Depending on the
precision you want out of your prediction, even two pool balls is
a computationally infeasible problem /before/ you get to quantum
scale.

>>> With atoms, the initial conditions are extremely vague (at
>>> least when you get past 2-3 atoms)
>>
>> If we're talking Heisenberg, initial conditions are extremely
>> vague even with /less/ than a single atom. Indeed, things get
>> /less/ vague--rapidly so--the /more/ atoms you add into the
>> mix. Your initial conditions are /much/ better defined with a
>> water molecule (three small atoms) than they are with a beta
>> particle.
>
> When I was talking about getting extremely vague, I was meaning
> we can tell failrly closely the position of a single atom
> without too much trouble (but then the momentum may not be that
> well known) but the more atoms we throw into the mix, the more
> total uncertainty we get and it increases geometrically in most
> cases. Try and tell the positions of 1,000 atoms at the same
> time with the same precision you can tell the position of
> one. We can tell the position of 1,000 billard balls about as
> easily as we can tell the position of a single one. But yes, the
> smaller a given object is, the harder it is to define a single
> one with the same precision.

And here.

Try to predict when a single uranium atom will decay. It's
not just computationally difficult, it's absolutely perfectly
impossible. (Even for an omnipotent being, but that's another can
of horses.) On the other hand, if you had a lump of uranium on a
table, you could easily predict to an astonishing degree of
accuracy how many uranium atoms will decay in the next 24
hours. The method of prediction is so simple that you could do it
on a piece of paper without a calculator. And, here's the good
part--the more uranium you have in the sample and the longer you
let the experiment run, the better your predictions. Which,
you'll notice, is the exact opposite of what happens in chaotic
systems.

> Chaos deals with whether or not you can make predictions of
> the system; the more chaotic, the less accurate long-term
> predictions will be.

Thanks for proving the point. The long-term predictions of quantum
mechanics are so accurate that they form the basis of the GPS
system. That's decidedly /not/ chaotic.

> Let's say I looked in the fridge and saw ice cream and liver and
> I reached for the ice cream. QM allows for the chance (how-ever
> small) that this ice cream becomes piping hot the modent I touch
> it (or the moment the spoonfull reached my mouth, etc.)

Erm...no, not unless you've got radioactive ice cream.

You're obviously interested in this sort of thing...and you
obviously not only know very little at all about it but have
profound misunderstandings in the bits you do know. So why not
read up on it? There're lots of great non-technical books on both
subjects that're intended for popular audiences. Go to the library
or bookstore and pick out some that catch your eye (but avoid ones
that are concerned with mystical or spiritual bull***, of
course). You'll get a kick out of them, I'm sure.

>>>> Hmmm...there goes my appetite. Probably not the best thing to
>>>> write about just before lunch....
>>>
>>> You just need a stronger stomache :)
>
>> What, you want to see me on the news as the Atheist Cannibal or
>> something?
>
> I just never did have a problem myself with watching gory TV and
> then eating (or doing both together) and sometimes pick with
> friends about them not being as "strong." But then maybe it's
> just me not being as "sensitive" :)

Yeah...but at least the TV ain't real, either....

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Loading