Re: On Determinism
- From: pashby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Ashby)
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:00:00 GMT
<alex.j.k@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Ashby wrote:
<alex.j.k@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter.H.M.Bro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The 'movement of some molecules in the brain' is not random, no more
than the movement of some molecules anywhere else.
This statement is at odds with the dominant interpretation of
current physical theory, so I don't see why I should take it seriously
-- certainly a claim to the effect that randomness is somehow excluded
by physics is sheer nonsense.
That is not what Peter is saying, which if you understood physics you
would realise. Molecules move in deterministic ways, even buffeted by
Brownian motion. It may look random, but the molecule will only move if
hit by another and will only move subsequently to conserve momentum.
This is entirely deterministic.
That Brownian motion could be interpreted as perfectly consistent
with deterministic Newtonian mechanics -and indeed it is usually
formulated that way-- does _not_ imply that the motion of molecules is
in fact deterministic - we know that Newtonian physics is just an
approximation of the real world. It is only so far that one can go with
the explanation of the movement of molecules as movements of billiard
balls.
It is certainly _not_ correct to claim that because of this
possible Newtonian interpretation, the motion of molecules is
deterministic.
Okay then, please explain the role of non Newtonian physics in the
motion of molecules. I know that relativity for eg is required to fully
explain the orbit of mercury but I am not aware of such a discrepancy in
the motion of molecules. Pray enlighten me.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: On Determinism
- From: alex . j . k
- Re: On Determinism
- References:
- Einstein might have had a point
- From: Peter H.M. Brooks
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Lance
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Lance
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Lance
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Lance
- Re: Einstein might have had a point
- From: Mark . Wright
- On Determinism
- From: alex . j . k
- Re: On Determinism
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: On Determinism
- From: alex . j . k
- Re: On Determinism
- From: Peter . H . M . Brooks
- Re: On Determinism
- From: alex . j . k
- Re: On Determinism
- From: Peter . H . M . Brooks
- Re: On Determinism
- From: alex . j . k
- Re: On Determinism
- From: Peter Ashby
- Re: On Determinism
- From: alex . j . k
- Einstein might have had a point
- Prev by Date: Re: On Determinism
- Next by Date: Re: On Determinism
- Previous by thread: Re: On Determinism
- Next by thread: Re: On Determinism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|