Am I agnostic, atheist or something else?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I believe that uncertainty dominates the microscopic world, because I have personally performed experiments that demonstrated this quality.

It would be total hubris to assume that what is understood today is the pinnacle of understanding. Many brilliant physicists and engineers thought quantum mechanics (QM) was absurd, and they were no less intelligent for being skeptical of a revolutionary theory that was barely understood. But today, if you have the patience to learn calculus and partial differential equations, you can learn QM. You can see that it is based on the most fundamentally basic of assumptions, and it just unfolds into a universe as you pull the mathematical strings.

Who knows what the next successful theory will be? Who knows what new math or other language will be used to describe it?

[a500lbgorilla]

I believe that uncertainty dominates the microscopic world, because I have personally performed experiments that demonstrated this quality.

It would be total hubris to assume that what is understood today is the pinnacle of understanding. Many brilliant physicists and engineers thought QM was absurd, and they were no less intelligent for being skeptical of a revolutionary theory that was barely understood. But today, if you have the patience to learn calculus and partial differential equations (PDEs), you can learn QM. You can see that it is based on the most fundamentally basic of assumptions, and it just unfolds into a universe as you pull the mathematical strings.

Who knows what the next successful theory will be? Who knows what new math or other language will be used to describe it?

So... what were the experiments?

[a500lbgorilla]

So... what were the experiments?

And did you show that probability is what dominates the tiny-verse or did you demonstrate that our best understanding of the tiny-verse is made by the vehicle of probability?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So... what were the experiments?

The single slit experiment is a great example showing that when space-information becomes confined, momentum information becomes spread out. The wave-interference is also interesting, but not the fascinating thing as pertains to the uncertainty principle.

Stern-Gerlach showed that an electron beam can be split into multiple beams, each containing electrons with only a single spin-state. When one of these beams is used as the input to another Stern-Gerlach experiment, the beams will split again. Showing that even though the electrons had been determined to be of one spin, they were immediately afterward determined to have a (perhaps) different spin.

The long history of the EPR "paradox" has shown that the randomness associated with particle states is thoroughly described by specific probability functions. (I haven't personally confirmed anything on the subject of quantum entanglement.)

And did you show that probability is what dominates the tiny-verse or did you demonstrate that our best understanding of the tiny-verse is made by the vehicle of probability?

What would be the difference? I honestly don't know that those are 2 different things. Are you are implying that what can be sensed is somehow NOT the "real" universe?


If this is not a troll, then you need to make that clear to me, because you're asking me grade-school questions and not offering any indication that you are actually interested in learning from my answers. It seems like you're only interested in tricking me into saying that I don't know what I know and that what I believe is without foundation...

.. and that's fine. Let me save you some time:

All belief is without foundation. Faith is to believe something despite the shocking lack of proof. It is impossible to live a sane life without faith in many things...

I'm thinking the guy who rules the universe in Hitchhiker's Guide... the one with a cat named, "the lord".

So I'm not worried about being shown that faith is the root of science. Of course it is. I have faith that basing what is considered to be knowledge on what can be repeated is a good way to be sure that something isn't a fluke occurrence, or poorly controlled process.

I have faith that my understandings are imperfect, but that through sharing understanding with others, and comparing our processes and conclusions, we can form a more consistent understanding, which is, at it's heart, the root of science.

[wufwugy]

I believe that uncertainty dominates the microscopic world, because I have personally performed experiments that demonstrated this quality.

It would be total hubris to assume that what is understood today is the pinnacle of understanding. Many brilliant physicists and engineers thought quantum mechanics (QM) was absurd, and they were no less intelligent for being skeptical of a revolutionary theory that was barely understood. But today, if you have the patience to learn calculus and partial differential equations, you can learn QM. You can see that it is based on the most fundamentally basic of assumptions, and it just unfolds into a universe as you pull the mathematical strings.

Who knows what the next successful theory will be? Who knows what new math or other language will be used to describe it?

We're not overturning truths, but filling in the questions. We're now at the point that meaningful deities simply cannot exist.

[a500lbgorilla]

My point was simple and I thought it was pretty clear.

Reality doesn't give a hoot about your best description of it. That the vehicle of probability is so useful in our description of the universe doesn't mean

that uncertainty dominates the microscopic world

You shoulda said uncertainty dominates our understanding of the microscopic world.

And did you show that probability is what dominates the tiny-verse or did you demonstrate that our best understanding of the tiny-verse is made by the vehicle of probability?

What would be the difference? I honestly don't know that those are 2 different things.

The difference is stark. On the one side is us and our brains and how they describe the universe and on the other is the universe and how it is carried across all that is.

The only language that can <perfect metric> describe reality is reality. And we don't speak that.


And don't think that I'm leading you with some argument. I'm standing in one spot.

Besides

The long history of the EPR "paradox" has shown that the randomness associated with particle states is thoroughly described by specific probability functions.

You know it as well as I.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The universe doesn't give a hoot about your best description of it.

What does anyone know about if/what the universe "gives a hoot about"?

That the vehicle of probability is so useful in our description of the universe doesn't mean "that uncertainty dominates the microscopic world". You shoulda said uncertainty dominates our understanding of the microscopic world.

OK, point well taken, but that implies that our understanding is uncertain, which is not the case. It is our understanding that uncertainty dominates the observable qualities of particles.

Our understanding is that complex wave functions describe probability distributions, which describe all observable information about a particle. These functions evolve over time in a way that is consistent with the evolution of waves over time. There are many coupled states for which one observable, say position, is the Fourier Transform of another observable, in this example momentum. The more localized the probability distribution is in either, the more non-localized the distribution becomes in the other. A decrease in the error bars on one results in an increase in the error bars on the other. This is not a mathematical error or a measurement error, it is intrinsic uncertainty in the nature of observable qualities.

While it is certain that our understanding is not perfect, any further knowledge of the underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty, can only reveal the nature by which these complex probability waves are created and give more detail of what they're composed. If it doesn't support and explain the extremely well documented inherent uncertainty that is observed, then it can not be a "better" model. Just as if QM made predictions that were incompatible with Maxwell's equations and Thermodynamics, it would be a bad theory. The same is true for Einstein's General Relativity.

The difference is stark. On the one side is us and our brains and how they describe the universe and on the other is the universe and how it is carried across all that is.

OK, but now you're calling into question what can be considered knowledge. You're calling into question if observations of the universe can be independent of the true nature of the universe.

OK, I posit that there can be a process by which we, as humans, deal with the fact that we have no certainty that the universe will work tomorrow as it does today.

Let's call it science. The more we do science... the more observations that are collected by independent sources and examined collectively... the more we can find consistent statements. We require that those statement are of a form that they can be disproved, and we try our hardest to disprove them. When we cannot disprove them, after many, many observations, we call those statements knowledge.

Balls in your court on this one. I am no expert on information theory or on the philosophy of knowledge.

And don't think that I'm leading you with some argument. I'm standing in one spot.

Thank you. I'm sorry if I haven't taken you 100% seriously on all fronts.

[a500lbgorilla]

I really can't give a response to your whole post because it is just teeming with so much to latch on to.

And-a-but

What does anyone know about if/what the universe "gives a hoot about"?

But this guy agrees with me



When he says, "One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions."

Or as I said, reality doesn't give a hoot about your description of it.

[a500lbgorilla]

OK, point well taken, but that implies that our understanding is uncertain, which is not the case. It is our understanding that uncertainty dominates the observable qualities of particles.

Ah ha, ha! It does imply that. And it shouldn't.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is not a mathematical error or a measurement error, it is intrinsic uncertainty in the nature of observable qualities.

Yes! And what have I been saying?

To say that the uncertainty is inherent in nature is to say that our ability to observe is complete.

[MadMojoMonkey]

To say that the uncertainty is inherent in nature is to say that our ability to observe is complete.

No, it does not follow. You misunderstand one of the primary lessons of QM. Read up as much as you can on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Read what motivated it, the fervent opposition to it, and the experiments that have confirmed it.

You will see that the more and more complete our observations become, the more and more they support the inherent uncertainties in QM. The act of observation will never be complete, but the observation-based uncertainties are limited more and more over time.

Currently, the uncertainties based on observation are orders of magnitude less than the uncertainties predicted by QM. The QM uncertainties dominate the total uncertainty, and are as predicted.

[a500lbgorilla]

While it is certain that our understanding is not perfect, any further knowledge of the underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty, can only reveal the nature by which these complex probability waves are created and give more detail of what they're composed.

Sweetlord, sidebar.

What makes you know that there is an underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty?

I ain't trapping you here. ya hear?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sweetlord, sidebar.

What makes you know that there is an underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty?

I ain't trapping you here. ya hear?

Nothing has indicated to me that such a mechanism exists.

Just as nothing had indicated a sub-structure of an atom a while ago, but that was wrong. Nothing predicted the sub-structure of a proton, but that has been discovered as well.

If there is a sub-structure to what are currently understood at complex-valued probability distribution functions, that could shed light on the nature of the inherent uncertainty. It can not make the uncertainty go away. Even if there is some model that is fully compatible with QM which does not involve wave functions, but which looks like wave functions in the special case of particles, the fact that it looks like wave functions (if nothing else) introduces uncertainty.