my theory
-
There are truly random processes. Nuclear decay is a completely random process that is impossible to predict. Cosmic ray bursts are truly random... Stopping time at a given instant does not allow one to predict when an atom will undergo radioactive decay. Therefore, radioactive emissions are non-calculable and, more importantly, non-predictable. Because such events can influence human mortality - that is a randomly generated radioactive particle, could possibly induce terminal cancer in a patient leading to that patient's premature (and since initiated by a random process) random death. Thus, even given all the computing power in the world, you could not reconstruct this persons world-line (or history) accurately. If you could, you could therefore imagine a way to understand and predict random events before they happened. Of course, by the construction of the concept of randomness, this is impossible. Thus, by contradiction, we have proved that your theory cannot be true. Subsequently free will must exist (as numerous philosophers have touted throughout the ages...).
there're obviously some situations like a singularity, a unique circumstance in which simply no physical rule we know of is present. IN MY OPINION mathematically speaking (there's no circumstance you cannot translate into quantities) there's no number chain (nor will there ever be one) that cannot be produced or reproduced by an algorythm. this would prove the complete absence of coincidences.
-
there're obviously some situations like a singularity, a unique circumstance in which simply no physical rule we know of is present. IN MY OPINION mathematically speaking (there's no circumstance you cannot translate into quantities) there's no number chain (nor will there ever be one) that cannot be produced or reproduced by an algorythm. this would prove the complete absence of coincidences.
:suss:Philipp Roesch wrote: mathematically speaking (there's no circumstance you cannot translate into quantities) Sure there is. There are actually alot. The time remaining until the day you die. The size of the universe at a given moment, the value of Microsoft stock tomorrow at 3:20 pm, the list goes on... Philipp Roesch wrote: there's no number chain (nor will there ever be one) that cannot be produced or reproduced by an algorythm. Wrong! Write me code to generate the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the fine structure, Planck's constant, the angle between molecular bonds, any constant...try it! Philipp Roesch wrote: this would prove the complete absence of coincidences. Randomness explains the absence of coincidences, not number theory or computing power... It is well known that mathematics is incomplete as a structure to describe everything. See Godels incompleteness theorem.
-
:suss:Philipp Roesch wrote: mathematically speaking (there's no circumstance you cannot translate into quantities) Sure there is. There are actually alot. The time remaining until the day you die. The size of the universe at a given moment, the value of Microsoft stock tomorrow at 3:20 pm, the list goes on... Philipp Roesch wrote: there's no number chain (nor will there ever be one) that cannot be produced or reproduced by an algorythm. Wrong! Write me code to generate the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the fine structure, Planck's constant, the angle between molecular bonds, any constant...try it! Philipp Roesch wrote: this would prove the complete absence of coincidences. Randomness explains the absence of coincidences, not number theory or computing power... It is well known that mathematics is incomplete as a structure to describe everything. See Godels incompleteness theorem.
look, i'm not the greatest physicist, nor was i ever talking about computer power. this here is just about logic and most of the herein situations are hypothetical. fact is that neither you or anybody else can prove that there's no algorythm for any thinkable number chain (we're talking of algorythms that no normal human being could ever elaborate!), because each number has a proportion to another number, each sequence a proportion to another sequence, each uppersequence a proportion to another uppersequence, aso... ok?
-
consider the following: since there're no coincidences (nothing's random, just maybe psychorandom), everything must be calculatable. this means, if someone stops time at an specific instance, knowing about every physical data there is, that person could build up a computer that could go forward and back in time calculating and representing visually the world (including ourselves). if we transfer this into humans we can say that there's nothing but dna and experience, no free will. i'm convinced of this as i'm about the fact that one can raise a healthy baby into a nobelprize winning scientist as well as into a murder (the requirement is naturally total control). this maybe shocking, but i would like to know what you people think of this...
Philipp Roesch wrote: everything must be calculatable Go read the Foundation trilogy by Asimov. You'll learn all about the predictabilty of human events. Remember that famous statistical saying, every event that occurs purely by chance is predictable. :) Chris Meech We're more like a hobbiest in a Home Depot drooling at all the shiny power tools, rather than a craftsman that makes the chair to an exacting level of comfort by measuring the customer's butt. Marc Clifton VB is like a toolbox, in the hands of a craftsman, you can end up with some amazing stuff, but without the skills to use it right you end up with Homer Simpson's attempt at building a barbeque or his attempt at a Spice rack. Michael P. Butler
-
:suss:Philipp Roesch wrote: mathematically speaking (there's no circumstance you cannot translate into quantities) Sure there is. There are actually alot. The time remaining until the day you die. The size of the universe at a given moment, the value of Microsoft stock tomorrow at 3:20 pm, the list goes on... Philipp Roesch wrote: there's no number chain (nor will there ever be one) that cannot be produced or reproduced by an algorythm. Wrong! Write me code to generate the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the fine structure, Planck's constant, the angle between molecular bonds, any constant...try it! Philipp Roesch wrote: this would prove the complete absence of coincidences. Randomness explains the absence of coincidences, not number theory or computing power... It is well known that mathematics is incomplete as a structure to describe everything. See Godels incompleteness theorem.
Sure there is. There are actually alot. The time remaining until the day you die. The size of the universe at a given moment, the value of Microsoft stock tomorrow at 3:20 pm, the list goes on...
Well but that's because you don't know them (yet), that doesn't mean that they can't be quantified... -
Philipp Roesch wrote: everything must be calculatable Go read the Foundation trilogy by Asimov. You'll learn all about the predictabilty of human events. Remember that famous statistical saying, every event that occurs purely by chance is predictable. :) Chris Meech We're more like a hobbiest in a Home Depot drooling at all the shiny power tools, rather than a craftsman that makes the chair to an exacting level of comfort by measuring the customer's butt. Marc Clifton VB is like a toolbox, in the hands of a craftsman, you can end up with some amazing stuff, but without the skills to use it right you end up with Homer Simpson's attempt at building a barbeque or his attempt at a Spice rack. Michael P. Butler
-
consider the following: since there're no coincidences (nothing's random, just maybe psychorandom), everything must be calculatable. this means, if someone stops time at an specific instance, knowing about every physical data there is, that person could build up a computer that could go forward and back in time calculating and representing visually the world (including ourselves). if we transfer this into humans we can say that there's nothing but dna and experience, no free will. i'm convinced of this as i'm about the fact that one can raise a healthy baby into a nobelprize winning scientist as well as into a murder (the requirement is naturally total control). this maybe shocking, but i would like to know what you people think of this...
And then there's the theory of unlimited parallel universes (Scientific American magazine recently did an article supporting multiple models for this in terms of the physical aspects). At each instant in time, we have a huge, but finite amount of choices we can make. I can raise my arm. I can wiggle my toe. I can howl like a wolf. No, wait, that requires Tequila first. Anyway, we choose one of these possiblities, and in the next instant are presented with yet another set of options. According to some theories, each of these possibilities gets played out in a mind boggling expansion of parallel universes. Therefore, anything that could possibly happen, does. You're going to need a bigger computer. :-D Christopher Duncan Today's Corporate Battle Tactic Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
-
consider the following: since there're no coincidences (nothing's random, just maybe psychorandom), everything must be calculatable. this means, if someone stops time at an specific instance, knowing about every physical data there is, that person could build up a computer that could go forward and back in time calculating and representing visually the world (including ourselves). if we transfer this into humans we can say that there's nothing but dna and experience, no free will. i'm convinced of this as i'm about the fact that one can raise a healthy baby into a nobelprize winning scientist as well as into a murder (the requirement is naturally total control). this maybe shocking, but i would like to know what you people think of this...
Simple - Clickety[^] Imagine a time line. Starting at maybe 1 A.D., extending to 2004, each century being marked with a tick. Then imagine an arrow, pointing to the end of the 19th century. Label? "You are here".
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Simple - Clickety[^] Imagine a time line. Starting at maybe 1 A.D., extending to 2004, each century being marked with a tick. Then imagine an arrow, pointing to the end of the 19th century. Label? "You are here".
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
There are truly random processes. Nuclear decay is a completely random process that is impossible to predict. Cosmic ray bursts are truly random... Stopping time at a given instant does not allow one to predict when an atom will undergo radioactive decay. Therefore, radioactive emissions are non-calculable and, more importantly, non-predictable. Because such events can influence human mortality - that is a randomly generated radioactive particle, could possibly induce terminal cancer in a patient leading to that patient's premature (and since initiated by a random process) random death. Thus, even given all the computing power in the world, you could not reconstruct this persons world-line (or history) accurately. If you could, you could therefore imagine a way to understand and predict random events before they happened. Of course, by the construction of the concept of randomness, this is impossible. Thus, by contradiction, we have proved that your theory cannot be true. Subsequently free will must exist (as numerous philosophers have touted throughout the ages...).
John Theal wrote: [Theory: No random processes possible] [...]we have proved that your theory cannot be true. Subsequently free will must exist[...] How does the latter conclude from the former? All you can say is that free will
CANexist, not that itmustexist.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
-
maybe i will, thanks. i've already read a lot about cognitive psychology. like if you ask people that have average logic-mathematical capabilities, you'll se that most of them answer 36 if you ask them for a number between 0 and 100.
Philipp Roesch wrote: like if you ask people that have average logic-mathematical capabilities, you'll se that most of them answer 36 if you ask them for a number between 0 and 100 No, thats wrong: Its 42!:rolleyes:;P
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
-
ich war nicht so weit davon entfernt dir zu glauben als ich dein geiles pic sah, peterchen. ich halte im gegensatz zu deiner anthropoidischen bemerkungen eher nach sächlicherem ausschau.
Aber wo er doch Recht hat? Du bist wahrlich nicht der erste mit dieser Theorie. Übrigens - Deutsch ist hier ziemlich unhöflich. Etwa 75% der Leute hier können nur Englisch, und für den Rest ist English der kleinste gemeinsame Nenner. You are searching for some substantial refutation of your theory? I hope I remember to look them up in my link collection. Just do a little googeling, and you will find plenty.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
-
ich war nicht so weit davon entfernt dir zu glauben als ich dein geiles pic sah, peterchen. ich halte im gegensatz zu deiner anthropoidischen bemerkungen eher nach sächlicherem ausschau.
Philipp Roesch wrote: anthropoidischen bemerkungen eher nach sächlicherem ausschau kannst du das bitte mal übersetzen? :confused: ok, sächlicheres - Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts hatte der "Determinismus" seine Blütezeit: Gott war aus der Wissenschaft verbannt, man war sich ziemlich sicher, alle zu entdeckenden Naturgesetze entdeckt zu haben. Man dachte, man müßte nur noch ein paar Jahrzehnte etwas Ordnung in die Wissenschaft bringen, ein bißchen aufräumen und formalisieren, und dann könnte man den Laden im Prinzip schließen. Die bereits erwähnte Unschärferelation, Quanteneffekte* und radioaktive Zerfall waren noch nicht entdeckt. Insofern sehe ich meine flapsige Bemerkung schon als gerechtfertigt ;) *) Gut, photoelektrischer Effekt 1897 - aber da man hier was vollkommen neuem auf der Spur war, hat Einstein erst 1905 rausgelassen
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Aber wo er doch Recht hat? Du bist wahrlich nicht der erste mit dieser Theorie. Übrigens - Deutsch ist hier ziemlich unhöflich. Etwa 75% der Leute hier können nur Englisch, und für den Rest ist English der kleinste gemeinsame Nenner. You are searching for some substantial refutation of your theory? I hope I remember to look them up in my link collection. Just do a little googeling, and you will find plenty.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
-
consider the following: since there're no coincidences (nothing's random, just maybe psychorandom), everything must be calculatable. this means, if someone stops time at an specific instance, knowing about every physical data there is, that person could build up a computer that could go forward and back in time calculating and representing visually the world (including ourselves). if we transfer this into humans we can say that there's nothing but dna and experience, no free will. i'm convinced of this as i'm about the fact that one can raise a healthy baby into a nobelprize winning scientist as well as into a murder (the requirement is naturally total control). this maybe shocking, but i would like to know what you people think of this...
Philipp Roesch wrote: since there're no coincidences (nothing's random, just maybe psychorandom), there's perhaps no coincidence, but there are probabilities. The number of combinations since the Big Bang is perhaps finite, but must be big enough not to be handled for a while, even if trying to use fuzzy logic :)
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
-
Philipp Roesch wrote: anthropoidischen bemerkungen eher nach sächlicherem ausschau kannst du das bitte mal übersetzen? :confused: ok, sächlicheres - Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts hatte der "Determinismus" seine Blütezeit: Gott war aus der Wissenschaft verbannt, man war sich ziemlich sicher, alle zu entdeckenden Naturgesetze entdeckt zu haben. Man dachte, man müßte nur noch ein paar Jahrzehnte etwas Ordnung in die Wissenschaft bringen, ein bißchen aufräumen und formalisieren, und dann könnte man den Laden im Prinzip schließen. Die bereits erwähnte Unschärferelation, Quanteneffekte* und radioaktive Zerfall waren noch nicht entdeckt. Insofern sehe ich meine flapsige Bemerkung schon als gerechtfertigt ;) *) Gut, photoelektrischer Effekt 1897 - aber da man hier was vollkommen neuem auf der Spur war, hat Einstein erst 1905 rausgelassen
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenich erwähn's noch mal kurz, peterchen: es geht um Logik, nicht um die menschheitsgeschichte. ich hatte es gerade von zahlenfolgen die nicht von algorythmen wiedergeben werden können um zu beweisen das es keinen zufall gibt (nur vielleicht pseudo-zufälle). in welche sprache soll ich dir den satz übersetzen?
-
Philipp Roesch wrote: Tы хочёш Говорить по–русский? A Ilúvatarinya! En ná pelecco cárinyesse. Oder was?
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
-
Philipp Roesch wrote: since there're no coincidences (nothing's random, just maybe psychorandom), there's perhaps no coincidence, but there are probabilities. The number of combinations since the Big Bang is perhaps finite, but must be big enough not to be handled for a while, even if trying to use fuzzy logic :)
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
-
look, i'm not the greatest physicist, nor was i ever talking about computer power. this here is just about logic and most of the herein situations are hypothetical. fact is that neither you or anybody else can prove that there's no algorythm for any thinkable number chain (we're talking of algorythms that no normal human being could ever elaborate!), because each number has a proportion to another number, each sequence a proportion to another sequence, each uppersequence a proportion to another uppersequence, aso... ok?
Philipp Roesch wrote: fact is that neither you or anybody else can prove that there's no algorythm for any thinkable number chain Goedel has proven (Incompleteness theorem) that any system of connected theories (like physics and mathematics is) cannot be described in its own terms. That is why there are physical constants that must be measured - they absolutely can not be predicted from other measurements. The Plank constant is one of them. So we can prove that there are things that are in principle outside of every conceivable algorithm.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
-
Philipp Roesch wrote: Tы хочёш Говорить по–русский? A Ilúvatarinya! En ná pelecco cárinyesse. Oder was?
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
