/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 197 KB, 400x289, 1279177935574.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 13:24:24 2010 No.1698176 [Reply] [Original]

The more scientifically literate i am, the less i believe in science as the ultimate method of harnessing knowledge.

People that believe science --at least how we practice it so far - wont provide all the answers get in here.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 13:27:24 2010 No.1698187 ok ok guys that believe that science will provide all the answers are welcome too for some discussion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:33:24 2010 No.1698215 with no science there is no study there is nothing. without science there is no philosophy without philosophy there is no massive thought, hence the world will revert to apes. /thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:34:24 2010 No.1698219 You are correct, OP. Science is one good way for studying one small slice of reality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:35:24 2010 No.1698222 >>1698215 Science is one of many branches of philosophy. Without science there would still be the rest of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:38:24 2010 No.1698230 sneaky attempt for constructivism is sneaky

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:38:24 2010 No.1698231 >The more scientifically literate i am, the less i believe in science as the ultimate method of harnessing knowledge. Who gives a shit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:42:24 2010 No.1698247 >>1698222 But philosophy is a 'spawn' of science without science philosophy would never be. IE; you go back in time and kill your grandmother now you have no father now you have no you. without the grandfather of philosophy it wouldnt be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:45:24 2010 No.1698259 Hey guys, life is vain, man won't be exposed to any truth, 'cause of his lowlife nature. But that's too specific; should probably be a bit more abstract. Anyway, as Socrates says: "one thing I know; that I know nothing".

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:45:24 2010 No.1698260 >>1698215 he's not saying that science in and of itself is a bad thing, he's just saying that modern science is not the be all and end all of everything ever. This seems perfectly reasonable.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 13:50:24 2010 No.1698280 science will find its limits not in hundreds of years but now, i see evidence everywhere how science is flaking against new emerging questions

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:51:24 2010 No.1698283 >>1698260 yes agreeable but what i got from OP was science = useless

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:51:24 2010 No.1698285 >>1698280 example

Dante !SamaOwO2P. Fri Sep 3 13:55:24 2010 No.1698290

:D thats exactly how i "feel". in the end it doesnt matter for now.... it might be that future science might differ from the science today, maybe some kind of science or maybe just some kind of rational thoughts will lead so something that will change mankind and everything surrounding us and we might get to see something thats beyond this world, parallel to it or just invisible. we might....

as jacob bronowski said:

"It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods."

"Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.""

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:55:24 2010 No.1698292 >>1698285 cricket, wtf is that even about?

:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 13:56:24 2010 No.1698295

>>1698285
any type of non-linear system.

you want something more special?

life,far-from equilibrium thermodynamics, AI..

Sure chaos theory and applied dynamics tell us something about them, but this research started 20-30 years ago. and so far it havent give any revolution.

What we only see when we build our models of those systems, is how our previous deterministic concepts, fail again and again.

Dante !SamaOwO2P. Fri Sep 3 13:57:24 2010 No.1698301

>>1698280

oh no i cant agree to that statement. right now all i have is a hunch, a guess that there might be more to the world we might not be able to graps through science.

yet i dont believe we will be able to find it... maybe never and certainly not today. the more i read about science and the more it progresses in lots of things the more i am assured that science is a way to see one huge part of the world. at least for humans.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 13:58:24 2010 No.1698304 >>1698290 good job i love the "ascent of man" i particularly enjoy that episode. What i want to stress is that we are facing boundaries, TODAY. not in far future as i used to believe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 13:59:24 2010 No.1698307 >>1698295 you mean AI self awakening robotics laws?

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 14:01:24 2010 No.1698321 >>1698307 Intelligence that simulate ours. not algorithms that kind of resemble "intelligence" that only make sense if you really stress the term.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:03:24 2010 No.1698331

>>1698176
I agree. There's plenty out there which isn't scientifically provable and yet true. While I agree with most scientific findings (I'm rather dubious of dark energy/matter atm) I don't agree with those who think science has or will have all the answers.

Dante !SamaOwO2P. Fri Sep 3 14:05:24 2010 No.1698345

>>1698304

they told max planck to not go into theoretical physics since they expected the world to be already explained... however there was this problem with black body radiation.

"modern" science has lots of frontiers and they will need radical new thoughts. we know we need to but we can only accept them if old systems dont work at all to explain something fundamental.

and again some more bronowski this time episode 13:

"And I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into—into what? Into Zen Buddhism; into falsely profound questions about, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are able to know if we devote ourselves to it: an understanding of man himself. We are nature’s unique experiment to make the rational intelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us."

up till now we face several fundamental problems we try to solve eg. conscioussness and some think we will be able to find solutions some think it wont happen. i dont know.

but what i am sure of is that the world itself has somekind of explanation and if we will face dead ends its because humans arent capable of doing any more.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:06:24 2010 No.1698347 >>1698321 so you are a philisophcal fag believing that talking and being around other "thinkers" will spark more insight and thought in ourselves?

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:07:24 2010 No.1698357

The scientific method is THE way to generate knowledge about the observable world we live in.

Present alternatives for generating knowledge, while keeping in mind what knowledge is (roughly: justified true belief)

The only thing besides the scientific method is identifying a set of self-evident axioms and deducing stuff from it.

Dante !SamaOwO2P. Fri Sep 3 14:14:24 2010 No.1698380

one example:
take as given: god exists

but even if he exists...what would it change about us and our world? essentially nothing.

there might be more but do we need to think about it? why go into some esoteric route if it has no direct correlation and causation?

analytic philosophy..... unfortunatly even that seems to have limits thanks to humans being limited.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:18:24 2010 No.1698390

So far the argument I've heard in this thread is that chaos theory hasn't solved the universe in 30 years, therefore science cannot possibly solve problems with things like that ever. Ridiculous. I will agree though that there are things science will not be able to solve based on their sheer 'unobservability'. The two ways to present this are as follows: first that the very methods we're using to compile data are ones that we are able to interpret and read. It is possible that the true answer if there is to be one is within data that simply is not observable by humans since we are biased via sensory perception (I don't necessarily think this is true for a large majority of things, but it's a possibility none the less); second there are things that may simply be so far away we can't possibly reach them to observe, and the evidence those things could provide might contribute to an incorrect interpretation of the universe as a whole.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:24:24 2010 No.1698409 >>1698380 There is some great Wittgenstein quote about why the "oh but humans are limited" line isn't that impressive. Let's see if I can find it.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Fri Sep 3 14:27:24 2010 No.1698422

>>1698176
Science is one method for measuring and determining quite a lot. In an indirect way it makes the everything else easier and easier to understand. Science can't do everything, but what it does is invaluable. It was one piece to the greater infrastructure, but not the whole machine.

>>	Dante !SamaOwO2P. Fri Sep 3 14:30:24 2010 No.1698438 >>1698409 ....still havent read wittgenstein :S i am looking forward to the quote :3

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:33:24 2010 No.1698448 >>1698380 That is silly circular reasoning. If there is a God, it means that everything that exists exists because of God, and without God it wouldn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 14:40:24 2010 No.1698478 >>1698448 which sounds a lot like Hawking's explanation of the universe, oddly (i ain't no godfag btw)

>>	Dante !SamaOwO2P. Fri Sep 3 14:41:24 2010 No.1698480 >>1698448 i never claimed that the world has been made by god or that he is almighty etc.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 16:14:24 2010 No.1698875

Have to agree with op, at least from the technological perspective i think we did more progress from the 90s to 2000 than 2000 to 2010.

Seems that the Singularity is unreachable or at least is not a continuous flow, we need some sort of revolution that will take us to the next level.

We need a revolution in science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 16:27:24 2010 No.1698915 I remember reading somewhere that in several millions of years it'll be impossible to tell that other galaxies exists using the scientific method, due to the expansion of the universe. Does anyone knows what I'm talking about?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 16:32:24 2010 No.1698935 >>1698409 Wittgenstein was a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 18:11:24 2010 No.1699356 File: 89 KB, 600x429, gaston.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1698295 how does chaos theory disprove deterministic concepts? without causality there is no science, there is no testing and there is no useful observation lrn2science

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 18:18:24 2010 No.1699381 >>1698915 yeah, i remember hearing that on "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss eventually if we go far enough into the future, to the inhabitants of earth it will look like we are alone in the universe due to expansion

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 18:41:24 2010 No.1699451 >>1699381 that doesn't mean that you won't be able to tell that galaxies exist using science... you'll just need a better telescope

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 18:43:20 2010 No.1699457 >>1699451 galaxies don't exist

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:22:24 2010 No.1700294 >>1699356 yeah dumbass, bottom line is that how bounded are we to that entailment of causality, on how the universe pretty much care less if you can do science with it or not

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:24:24 2010 No.1700310 >>1698176 Anyone know what episode OP's .gif is from?

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:26:24 2010 No.1700319

I agree with OP.

Personally, I've witnessed too much similarity between passionate religious folk and the their scientific arch enemies. Both of them have mental blocks they they proudly raise if new ideas come along, have potential, and need a buddy/partner to nurture them into full-standing new tools for humanity.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:30:24 2010 No.1700330

>>1698176
I agree with you OP. Science has never explained anything. It just observes causality and creates models to describe what it sees. The models we use keep changing. Science will never be able to explain why things are the way they are.

Transhumanism is destroying the wounder of life and discarding the emotions that makes us human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:31:24 2010 No.1700332 >>1700319 Yep, it's the same group-think in both. They aren't as different as they think. Just study in detail the history of science if you don't believe this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:32:24 2010 No.1700336 >>1698295 >deterministic Pfff. Determinism went out with Newton.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:35:24 2010 No.1700349 >>1700330 I would say that transhumanism is enhancing the wonder of life, or at least giving us more life to wonder at.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:40:24 2010 No.1700367 >>1699356 did someone photoshop that picture?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:49:24 2010 No.1700402 File: 89 KB, 568x326, bill-and-ted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: No examples of people doing whatever OP says is bad.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:53:24 2010 No.1700414

>>1700336
????
QM is still deterministic dumb ass..
the present state determine the future state, the only thing that changed is that modern physics substitute 2nd newtons law equation with Schrodinger wave/particle equations. Probability is required to settle it in the same terms as the old equation. but it still follows the present-future rule.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 22:54:24 2010 No.1700416 >>1700402??? read this. >>1698295

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:13:24 2010 No.1700505 File: 22 KB, 504x467, oh thats how.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP is currently on one of the humps

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 23:22:24 2010 No.1700548 >>1700505 No

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:25:24 2010 No.1700560 >>1700414 No. The only thing you got correct is probabilistic. QM is random but probabilistic. Not fully deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:30:24 2010 No.1700568 >>1700414 Fail. The future is not completely determined by the past. QM is therefore not deterministic.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:38:24 2010 No.1700604

OP is an enormous faggot.

Never has a scientific explanation been overridden by a superstitious one.

It's gonna take us to the stars. What has the rest of philosophy done? Without science you'd have no computer, no electricity, no aircraft, no bloody medicine.

Fuck I'm pissed off.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 23:40:24 2010 No.1700608 >>1700560 >>1700568 You guys are thinking about correlation QM have probabilistic causality -- this is no incoherent term -, one thing is we really dont understand what is the cause.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:40:24 2010 No.1700609 He's just stating that science can only go so far. It can only explain what can be observed, while there are things that cannot be observed. He never said anything about superstitious beliefs overriding science.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:43:24 2010 No.1700621

>>1700604
>Never has a scientific explanation been overridden by a superstitious one.
Wrong. According to galileo, the scientific explanation of the tides was the sloshing around of the oceans. The superstitious one was that the moon had something to do with it.

According to Democritus the scientific idea of the shape of the earth was flat. The superstitious idea of it was spherical (which wasn't based on observation at the time, but on Pythagoras's geometric idealism).

In both cases the superstitious explanations proved to be true and the scientific ones false.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 23:43:24 2010 No.1700622 >>1700604 yeah sure our technological achievements made a difference. at least enough for us realize how far are we of trully understanding complex phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:45:24 2010 No.1700632 >>1700621 But in both cases it was only through scientific observation that we determined which was correct.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 23:45:24 2010 No.1700633 >>1700609 Agree with you on that, but i believe that we still can observe things, that are impossible to model, or in a more technical way to encode into our current formal systems

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:46:24 2010 No.1700636 >>1700608 You don't understand PROBABILITY. Determinism requires not probability but absoluteness.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:48:24 2010 No.1700644

>>1700608
You need to understand the difference between determinism and causality. No one is stating that QM is acausal. It is however non-deterministic. Deterministic means that the future state is completely determined by the prior state. This is not the case in QM.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:49:24 2010 No.1700649 >>1700632 So what? It still disproves the claim. What was called "superstition" arrived at the truth first.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:51:24 2010 No.1700658

>>1700649
Watch this, because it is very related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

Issac Assimov, "The Relativity of Wrong."

Slightly different but fairly similar to what you're describing.

You're confusing "superstitious" with something else.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:52:24 2010 No.1700663

OP makes a good point. How do we know that the way I see the color green is the same as yours? What if my green was what you consider yellow? We'd never know. The consciousness of each individual human is interesting to think about. Why am I me and not you? We can explain the chemical reactions that go on in a person's head but the individual conscious mind is not subject to logical explanation. If you go totally logical it seems like we'd all be really complex biological robots. But we're not.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Sep 3 23:52:24 2010 No.1700665 >>1700644 Quantum uncertainty does not imply a fundamental lack of determinism. See e.g. Sec. 4 of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163 [Found. Phys. 37 (2007) 1563]

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:54:24 2010 No.1700671 >>1700658 I'm not watching that whole blather. Sorry.

Anonymous Fri Sep 3 23:59:24 2010 No.1700689

>>1700663
But we are. And while it makes for an interesting thought experiment, it serves no real use, as science has thus far explained...well, goddamn everything.

>>1700665
Yes it DOES. It explicitly states that particles move randomly BUT probabilistically. It's "deterministic" in that it is set in stone, in a sense, but it is completely random and unpredictable (with absolute precision, since it is probabilistic but still random, which sounds a little silly to someone that doesn't understand QM at all, but makes perfect sense to someone that does).

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:00:24 2010 No.1700695 >>1700665 That text is complete bullshit. He says there's no real wave-particle duality, and then goes on to describe QM in a way that exactly describes wave-particle duality.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 00:03:24 2010 No.1700714 >>1700689 implying YOU understand QM.. after reading your post i wont even bother...

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:05:24 2010 No.1700721 >>1700695 >>1700689 /sci/ were highschoolers know more than PhD physicists..

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:07:24 2010 No.1700731 >>1700714 That's why I added "at all." I understand it quite obviously more than you, but, lacking a degree in physics, clearly not fully. >>1700721 >implying you have a PhD

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:09:24 2010 No.1700742 >>1700721 I have a degree and I'm saying that paper is bullshit.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:11:24 2010 No.1700751

>>1700721
You know, even amongst physicists, or in ANY science field, there will be disagreement.

Many cosmologists and physicists are still conflicted about the origin or overall fate of the universe, or even if the universe is flat or not!

And, there are doctors out there, with PhDs, that believe that AIDS isn't caused by HIV.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:17:24 2010 No.1700777

>He says there's no real wave-particle duality

The hidden variables theory is as "real" as the wave/particle duality theory.

>and then goes on to describe QM in a way

retarded interpretation perhaps?
arxiv.org is Cornell's selection of papers among different fields..

but what they know right?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 00:18:24 2010 No.1700782

>>1700751
This is why, even more than the lofty ideals of the scientific method, we have to use the CONSEQUENCES of accepting a theory to judge its validity/importance.
We know that much of general relativity is true in consequence because we use it to calibrate GPS satellites.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 00:19:24 2010 No.1700783 >>1700751 yeah sure theres some evidence that suggest there is no relation between the disease and the virus

>>	Physicist Sat Sep 4 00:20:24 2010 No.1700791 File: 613 KB, 295x221, seinfield.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 10:33:24 2010 No.1702335 File: 32 KB, 500x323, 1283610519469.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:17:24 2010 No.1703187 File: 51 KB, 700x466, 1279084135564.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:26:24 2010 No.1703221 >science wont provide all the answers. Correct, at least in reference to our lifetime. >science not the ultimate method of harnessing knowledge. wrong.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:28:24 2010 No.1703230

You're right, at least for the time being. I don't think science does provide the answers for everything. But eventually it will. Humanity isn't advanced enough to comprehend the magnitude of the knowledge that will be gained in the next 1000, 2000 years. Think of how advanced we became since Jesus Christ. We are going to continue to advance and revolutionize until we will know everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:31:24 2010 No.1703237 >>1703230 The available knowledge is infinite. You can never no anything. The good news is you never need stop learning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:35:24 2010 No.1703254 Science is the search for truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:38:24 2010 No.1703265 >>1703254 It's one front on the search for truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:41:24 2010 No.1703278 >>1703265 Tell me another.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:47:24 2010 No.1703298 >>1703278 You've got to be kidding me. Are you that ignorant?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:49:24 2010 No.1703303 >>1703298 Perhaps. So can you provide another?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 15:52:24 2010 No.1703312 >>1703303 I guess he cannot.

>>	Mr. Slaughter Sat Sep 4 15:57:24 2010 No.1703319 The next area of science will be spirituality. W have looked outwards for centuries. We are now ready to explore inwards. As soon as we let go of our prejudice attitude towards "new age" and meditation and what not. Thats my guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:00:24 2010 No.1703327 >>1703254 science does not obtain the truth you retard.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:04:24 2010 No.1703338

>>1703327
Right, the computer you're currently using to insult science works why?

Either because science discovered the truth about how electrons behave in specific circumstances, or because little gnomes are carrying the words from your computer to mine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:04:24 2010 No.1703339 >>1698247 tl;dr but science is a spawn of philosophy, not the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:07:24 2010 No.1703348 >>1703339 science came from philosophy because philosophy wasn't adequate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:18:24 2010 No.1703373 Science won't provide ALL the answers, only the ones that matter.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:20:24 2010 No.1703384

>>1700665
This is correct.

It's like this: We have this mathematical apparatus, QM, that is just awesome in the sense that we can use it to describe measurable processes and predict them with a high level of accuracy.

The problem is giving meaning to those mathematical objects. Interpretations of QM. What does the apparent truth of QM imply about reality?

Among physicians, the most popular interpretation still is something like the Copenhagen interpretation, ie real indeterminacy. But there's a fully deterministic interpretation as well, the Bohmian one.

Of course, using the ontology-epistemology distinction, philosophers can always maintain that nothing proves determinism to be wrong. No sense-data is capable of doing that, and determinism isn't inconsistent.

Some smart philosopher like Quine, however, said that we should our best scientific theories determine our ontological views. And since Bell's results really constrained the deterministic interpretations, it's probably best to go with real indeterminacy.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:31:24 2010 No.1703424

>>1703338
>insult science

lololol im not insulting anyone or anything.

the science behind computers is very simple you dumb fuck.

OP is refering to non-linear complex systems..

when you stop being a retard you will understand that theres more complexity in a bacteria than your fucking chinese-made computer.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:41:05 2010 No.1703471 [DELETED]

>"And I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into—into what? Into Zen Buddhism; into falsely profound questions about, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are able to know if we devote ourselves to it: an understanding of man himself. We are nature’s unique experiment to make the rational intelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us."

Lol what a faggot.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:43:24 2010 No.1703480

>>1698345

>"And I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into—into what? Into Zen Buddhism; into falsely profound questions about, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are able to know if we devote ourselves to it: an understanding of man himself. We are nature’s unique experiment to make the rational intelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us."

Lol what a faggot.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:43:24 2010 No.1703482
File: 23 KB, 462x479, Hermann_Weyl_ETH-Bib_Portr_00890.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"We must learn a new modesty. We have stormed the heavens, but succeeded only in building fog upon fog, a mist which will not support anybody who earnestly desires to stand upon it. What is valid seems so insigni cant that it may be seriously doubted whether analysis is at all possible."

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:46:24 2010 No.1703498
File: 13 KB, 162x217, Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"Pure mathematics consists entirely of such asseverations as that, if such and such a proposition is true of anything, then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is of which it is supposed to be true... If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true."

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:47:24 2010 No.1703504

I think any true scientist realizes this. There are of course, always, the old experimentalist cronies who believe that everything can be solved somehow, but for the most part I think we all believe this on some level. Certainly, mathematicians hate to think twice about the foundations of mathematics. That doesn't mean that we can't continue to work on science in a similar fashion, but we should always have in our minds the limitations of it all and look for ways in which to improve. This is why I love and appreciate philosophy as much as I do science. Thousands of years have passed and Zeno's paradoxes haven't even been fully solved.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:47:24 2010 No.1703506
File: 102 KB, 487x600, 1197225097155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>People that believe science --at least how we practice it so far - wont provide all the answers get in here.
Science will provide all the answers for questions which have objectively right or wrong answers.
"why are we here" has no answer, because the whole idea of motivation is an entirely human construct.
Trying to project humanly emotions, like purpose, into inhuman things is a futile task.
so no, science can provide an answer to every single question that actually has an answer.
if science can't answer a question you have, doesn't mean science is lacking, it means you ask the wrong questions

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:52:24 2010 No.1703528
File: 80 KB, 390x522, ANWhitehead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feeling, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:55:24 2010 No.1703535 >>1703506 You have provided no reason why science can answer anything, just simply called people names. Answer me this question then, "What is a number?" You'll find there has yet to be a satisfying answer.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:56:24 2010 No.1703539

The idea that science works towards providing the why answers is childish. Science solves the how. The why is entirely human.

Neither does science dehumanize anyone. Detractors like to reference the Nazis and their treatment of Jews,gypsies,homosexuals, etc. as an example of what happens. The motivation behind that was not scientific knowledge or pursuit. I'm also curious as to why they do not mention the scientists that work around the clock to cure diseases, prevent disaster, and improve our lives.

tl;dr OP is a fag who doesn't understand science and its trying to justify his ignorance under the idea that we don't have the why answers. We never did claim and we don't care about the why.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:57:24 2010 No.1703548 >>1703506 so science will provide answers to unimportant questions?? AWESOME

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 16:59:24 2010 No.1703556

>>1703539
No, YOU don't understand science. There's tons of you guys out there, the ones who around their Junior/Sophmore year and only have a vague understanding of anything. There might be a few of you left by the time you get through grad school, but it is nearly impossible to not doubt science, on some level, as you grow older.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:00:24 2010 No.1703565

>>1703535
>just simply called people names
what? well, no
>What is a number
that question is underdetermined
you have to be more specific, otherwise there are a whole lot of answers.
one of them is "five"
if i would ask ""how warm is china?" you would rightfully think that this is a stupid question, because it is

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:00:24 2010 No.1703568 >>1703556 If you're a philosophy major, maybe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:01:24 2010 No.1703569 Op is not refering to WHY.. thats something you brought up.. again he refers to non-linearity in systems. >>1698295 >>1698295

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:02:24 2010 No.1703570

>>1703565
It's clear what I'm asking you, and there is no definite proof to show that a number itself is actually anything. Beyond that, we have things like Godel's work just sitting there. There is no way that you can be fluent in mathematics and science not realize there are many problems.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:02:24 2010 No.1703573

>>1703556

Wrong, I'm a senior biochemistry/philosophy major who has been doing research since my freshman year.

I don't doubt science because I don't consider it a philosophy or a way of life. It a tool for solving problems,increasing knowledge, and overall just a benefit to human life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:03:24 2010 No.1703576 >>1703539 you >>1703569 this

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:03:24 2010 No.1703579 >>1703568 So you believe that science can actually understand everything? On what basis? There's no reason to believe that, even if you're trying to be scientific. I am not talking about "why" questions here, I'm talking about fundamental questions.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:05:24 2010 No.1703587

>>1703556

No you look at the original post

"The more scientifically literate i am, the less i believe in science as the ultimate method of harnessing knowledge.

People that believe science --at least how we practice it so far - wont provide all the answers get in here."

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:06:24 2010 No.1703588 >>1703570 >It's clear what I'm asking you, and there is no definite proof to show that a number itself is actually anything and why should there be? Mathematics isn't really a part of the natural sciences anyway, it's a human invention.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:06:24 2010 No.1703589 >>1703573 >biochem Well that makes sense. I'm not talking about your shit. Science is "practical" for you. That doesn't mean it's flawless you moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:07:24 2010 No.1703594 >So you believe that science can actually understand everything? science is the only way we can understand anything there is no other avenue of getting answers about the natural world

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:07:24 2010 No.1703596 >>1703588 >and why should there be? Mathematics isn't really a part of the natural sciences anyway, it's a human invention. Oh dear, moron detected.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:07:24 2010 No.1703598 >>1703579 Give an example of a fundamental question. "Is there free will?" Science has answered that pretty solidly. "What's the meaning of life?" Science has answered that pretty solidly too. What do you think it wouldn't be able to answer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:08:24 2010 No.1703601 >>1703596 oh calling names sweet

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:10:24 2010 No.1703606 >>1703596 He's got a point, though. Godel's Theorem has fuck-all to do with science.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:10:24 2010 No.1703607

>>1703598
>"Is there free will?" Science has answered that pretty solidly.
Well that statement is just false, but beyond that. For example, "What does it mean to know something?" There are fundamental questions about the way we interpret and understand truth and math and the way science works that are unanswered. Math itself is a big problem.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:11:24 2010 No.1703612
File: 105 KB, 493x768, Pythagoras.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Seperating science and philosophy is idiotic, it never should have been done. Now we're left with all of these "different" fields which have trouble communicating with eachother due to stupid shit like "OH HAY LET'S JUST USE CHARACTERS FROM CRAZY MOON LANGUAGES TO STAND FOR STUFF. NOW IMA TAKE THE BETA OF MA BETA TO FIND THE DELTA OF ALPHA'S DELTA"

So many people don't even realize that there never used to be a separation of science and philosophy. We really need to assess if such a separation is helpful in any way besides making specialized training easier (with the consequence of it being less robust)

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:12:24 2010 No.1703617

>>1703589

I didn't say it was flawless. I said its a tool. Tools aren't infallible. One tool isn't right for every job. Also resorting to ad hominem attacks because I disagree with you doesn't make you right. You've positioned science on a pedestal it did not put itself on. Quit trying to be deep and brooding and go outside.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:14:24 2010 No.1703619 >>1703607 >What does it mean to know something? certain neurons through, currently, only partly understood mechanisms, formed new connections, that allow the human brain to reexperience impression from the past, and therefore recall information

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:14:24 2010 No.1703623

>>1703607
>Well that statement is just false, but beyond that.
Guess again! Here's a good write-up: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)

>For example, "What does it mean to know something?"
That's a fairly direct question in cognitive science. We'll be able to give explicit, physical answers within a few centuries at the outside.

>There are fundamental questions about the way we interpret and understand truth and math and the way science works that are unanswered.
Like what?

>Math itself is a big problem.
... What's the problem with math?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:15:24 2010 No.1703624 >>1703619 You sir win over 9000 internets

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:16:24 2010 No.1703628

>Seperating science and philosophy is idiotic, it never should have been done. Now we're left with all of these "different" fields which have trouble communicating with eachother due to stupid shit like "OH HAY LET'S JUST USE CHARACTERS FROM CRAZY MOON LANGUAGES TO STAND FOR STUFF. NOW IMA TAKE THE BETA OF MA BETA TO FIND THE DELTA OF ALPHA'S DELTA"
oh, know i understand
you are an idiot
you failed some science class because you were just too goddamn stupid, and instead of blaming yourself, you blamed science.
i got news for you: it wasn't mister heinemans fault that you failed that class, you are a goddamn idiot, that's why

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:16:24 2010 No.1703629 >>1703623 New to this thread, but what? Do you think that's a real solution? It's not a solution at all. Come on.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:20:24 2010 No.1703642

>>1703629
Sure it is. You are a collection of molecules with deterministic paths. Not "you inhabit a collection of molecules" but you ARE a collection of molecules. Those molecules follow decision-making algorithms. Those algorithms are how free will feels. The question is nonsensical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:21:24 2010 No.1703643 >>1703619 >>1703623 Do you guys just believe this stuff? You realize you don't even understand the question right? I'm surprised by you, sci. I thought you were smarter

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:22:24 2010 No.1703647 >>1703643 Because they believe that they are a collection of molecules and they believe that they are purely physical(which is a fact) they're idiots?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:22:24 2010 No.1703649

>>1698295

Actually, non linear systems are perfectly modellable, just so computationally intensive it would take until the heat death of the universe to solve anything interesting on a conventional computer - what we in the biz refer to as a 'non trivial' problem.

The reason academics (and not just codebreakers for the whole brute forcing gig) care about quantum computers is that they are actually capable of solving that sort of problem in feasible lengths of time.

gb2 computational magnetohydrodynamics, sucka.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:22:39 2010 No.1703648 File: 10 KB, 421x352, 1278333585025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1703642 >my face when you still definitely believe in determinism without any second thought

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:23:24 2010 No.1703651 >>1703643 >Do you guys just believe this stuff? yes >You realize you don't even understand the question right? i perfectly answered your question if you have a different question, ask >I thought you were smarter me too

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:23:24 2010 No.1703653 >>1703628 No, I do perfectly well in my math and science classes. I still stand by the fact that much of the notational system is lazy and uncreative, probably a result of that "I'm a math person / I'm a creative person" bullshit dichotomy.

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 17:24:24 2010 No.1703655

>>1703642
No.

The view of Lifeforms as machines already failed.

The machine metaphor probably made sense 300-400 years ago.

Machines and Biological systems are very different. Our human perception is what put the tag of "machines" on organisms. this is completely wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:25:24 2010 No.1703657 >>1703655 very, very complex machines are still machines give me a reason why they aren't

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:27:24 2010 No.1703658 >>1703648 Let's not open this argument again in this thread, eh? It works just the same if you substitute "probabilistic with very small standard deviation" for "deterministic".

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 17:28:24 2010 No.1703659 >>1703649 one thing is a complicated system with a lot of variables. to simulate another very different one, is one that is not Turing computable. i.e consciousness

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:28:24 2010 No.1703661

>>1703651
Free will is not a solved question first of all. Second of all your answer to what does it mean to "know" something is wrong. I'm pretty sure the guy was talking about what does it mean to know that something is true? Which is a very difficult question because our reasoning is always going to be skewed in some way or anything. Obviously "knowing" something in your head is an alignment of neurons anyone knows that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:28:24 2010 No.1703665 >>1703655 >The view of Lifeforms as machines already failed. ... What.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:30:24 2010 No.1703670 >>1703659 You honestly believe consciousness is not Turing-computable? Because that... would be an incredibly radical notion requiring a great deal of support.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:31:24 2010 No.1703674 >>1703659 >is one that is not Turing computable. >i.e consciousness oh, why the hell should a bunch of neurons and molecules not be computable? i understand it's gonna be complicated, but the turing machine has a infinity time (and tape) after all

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:32:24 2010 No.1703676
File: 42 KB, 400x301, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

A good number of the supposedly "deep" and "fundamental" philosophical questions either come from a misunderstanding of language or are just nonsense.

For example, the answer of the question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is strongly dependent on your definition of the word "sound". If you interpret "sound" to mean something like "pressure waves propagating in air", then yes, it does make a sound. Otherwise, if "sound" means to you "the sensation created by the reception of pressure waves propagating in air", then no, it doesn't make a sound.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:33:24 2010 No.1703679

>>1703661
>Obviously "knowing" something in your head is an
alignment of neurons anyone knows that.
there is no other form of knowing. it's always in your head. there is no flotation magical head out there that tells you if something is objectively true or not.
if you "know something is true" that are still neurons in your head

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:33:24 2010 No.1703681

>>1703655

Which machine metaphor? It's accepted that technically organisms are the result of chemical interactions which follow 'mechanical' laws, in the sense of electrostatics, charge transfer, quantum constraints etc. The reason we tend not to bother about this is just that it takes a massive fuckoff supercomputer just to properly simulate little bits of a cell, meaning modern hardware precludes us applying mechanistic principles beyond a metabolic level. You seem to be confusing massive intractibility with impossibility, at least in this case.

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 17:34:24 2010 No.1703683

>>1703657
are u serious?
I wont go into details because you dont even know what complex means.. You may think complex = complicated.

"the whole is more than the sum of its parts.". is a very simple answer that you may understand.

If you are interested in why is this so, help yourself yourself a fucking book instead of interrupting the people that are actually know at least the basics of what they are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:34:24 2010 No.1703684 >>1703676 >Otherwise, if "sound" means to you "the sensation created by the reception of pressure waves propagating in air", then no, it doesn't make a sound. >implying trees dont have ears

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:35:24 2010 No.1703688 >>1703679 And? Everyone knows that's true. That's not what we're talking about. :/

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:35:24 2010 No.1703690

>>1703661
Free will is a solved question. Really it is. We understand quite well the physical process which causes you to believe you have free will. Whether or not it exists depends on your definitions, but for any decent definition a definite answer exists.

"This sensation of freedom occurs when I believe that I can carry out, without interference, each of multiple actions, such that I do not yet know which of them I will take, but I am in the process of judging their consequences according to my emotions and morals."

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:36:24 2010 No.1703696 >>1703684 oh u

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:37:24 2010 No.1703697 >>1703683 it's always nice seeing people resort to insult and "you wouldn't understand it anyway" give me a good, logical reason why lifeforms can't be viewed as machines

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:38:24 2010 No.1703701 >>1703683 What? I'm actually having trouble understanding your meaning. In what sense, precisely, do you mean "Lifeforms are not machines"? Do you mean there literally are not physical laws governing them?

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 17:41:24 2010 No.1703714

>>1703665
>>1703681

Descartes is attributed with the popularization of the machine metaphor and he did it in a very interesting way. He saw the body as a biological machine and the mind as something apart from the body. This is called Cartesian Dualism and survives to this day as one approach to the so-called mind/body problem. What the machine metaphor did was to set the tone for modern science. It has lasted since that time. Descartes really did not know what a machine is, or if he did, he never told anyone. Ironically, not only do we not have a good definition of complexity, but we also lack one for a machine. The importance of this metaphor is in the intuitive concept of machine that almost everyone shares. A machine is built up from distinct parts and can be reduced to those parts without losing its machine-like character. We call this idea "Cartesian reductionism". We will see that this is not true for complex (real) systems except under very special circumstances. Cartesian reductionism does not work for complex systems; it only reduces them to simple mechanisms.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5824/550

>The reductionist approach has successfully identified most of the components and many of the interactions but, unfortunately, offers no convincing concepts or methods to understand how system properties emerge...the pluralism of causes and effects in biological networks is better addressed by observing, through quantitative measures, multiple components simultaneously and by rigorous data integration with mathematical models"

im pacient

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:42:24 2010 No.1703717

>>1703659

Actually, conscious states appear to be purely mechanistic in origin as well. Horribly nonlinear and self-modifying, but we've created similar apparent 'chaos' using neural net systems. Emotions have been known to be mechanistic for years and can be easily triggered; satiation, satisfaction, empathy, have more recently been demonstrated as neurochemically controlled. A lot of nonlinearity arises from how many of these systems respond to dopamine and similar 'generic' transmitters, and then differently feed back on these neurotransmitter levels in a way that is partially chemically controlled and partially a result of the specific connectivity of neurons.

Memory is known to be a result of the three dimensional form of the neural network in the brain, and the fact that one connection may be an element of several memory patterns is the reason one memory can trigger another, or we can get thoughts apparently 'out of the blue' (we don't, it's just a weak overlap that normally doesn't trigger having its one-in-a-million chance of triggering come up. Given how many memories we store, this happens all the time)

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 17:44:24 2010 No.1703723 >>1703701 >>1703697 >>1703681 >>1703665 >>1703657 this is your answer

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:46:24 2010 No.1703726 >>1703714 you are good sir..

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:46:24 2010 No.1703729

>We will see that this is not true for complex (real) systems except under very special circumstances. Cartesian reductionism does not work for complex systems; it only reduces them to simple mechanisms.
and why?
you just restated what you already said. you did give no reason whatsoever.

>offers no convincing concepts or methods to understand how system properties emerge
and what system properties are those? please enlighten me

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:46:24 2010 No.1703730

>>1703714
Ok, so by "lifeforms are not machines" you meant that reducing a biological entity to more fundamental components does not automatically grant an understanding of how the lifeform works and will behave, which would require at the very least simulating a chaotic system with no reducible solution. Which I don't think anyone would object to. But in modern parlance "lifeforms are not machines" means something entirely different - it suggests that they are not in fact the aggregate of many pieces and nothing more, which is just wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:50:24 2010 No.1703736 >>1703730 Why do you think that is wrong?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:52:24 2010 No.1703743
File: 5 KB, 160x160, 1202838801909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So, instead of "lifeforms are machines" it would probably better to say this

All living things are governed only by physical laws, and a human, could, theoretically, be described completely only by the interactions of the atoms that make up his body
Any objections?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:52:24 2010 No.1703745

>>1703714

...that's a failing of an old philosophical perspective, not of science. You do know that scientists stopped taking that sort of perspective wholly seriously well over a century ago right?

Also your link is good, but misses the point. Reductionism isn't meant to find emergent behaviour, it's meant to characterise the nature of the system. Emergent properties can then be found by taking these elements and then piecing them back together in a controlled, deliberate manner watchng new interactions as they arise and thus pinning down their origin. In fact, the kind of halfwits who insist that you only need reductionist experimentation or logic to find everything are a point of derision in the department coffee room.

In a simple sense, reductionism in biology holds that if you deconstruct life down to its primary systems, and then build back up using just those mundane elements, all behaviours (emergent, complex, the whole shebang) will arise from these systems and their interactions; there is no need for a magical third party to imbue any special attributes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:54:24 2010 No.1703754 >>1703743 Yes objections, that is most likely false.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:54:24 2010 No.1703755 >>1703736 What I meant was that science holds life is nothing more than the sum of many parts. I believe this because it's widely accepted by pretty much everyone I respect, and because it makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:55:24 2010 No.1703757 >>1703743 No, except that descriptions on this level are constrained by the uncertainty principle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:55:24 2010 No.1703760 >>1703754 and why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:56:24 2010 No.1703764 >>1703745 >You do know that scientists stopped taking that sort of perspective wholly seriously well over a century ago right? That doesn't make it correct. You should put less faith in authority.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:56:24 2010 No.1703767 >>1703743 Well, I sure as hell don't object. Don't know what >>1703754 is talking about. What else would it be? At what level would simulating atoms accurately fail to predict the behavior of the creature?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:56:24 2010 No.1703768 >>1703760 Because we're like so unique, man. Consciousness, soul and all that shit. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING BEYOND MERE MATTER!!111

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:57:24 2010 No.1703774 >>1703760 Because the nature of consciousness is fundamentally different from the nature of matter. This alone is enough to strongly imply the idea of dualism, and there is no evidence to oppose the idea of dualism.

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 17:58:24 2010 No.1703778

>>1703729
>and why?

theres some theories.

If i did know why they exhibit chaotic behavior im sure i would win the nobel price.

>and what system properties are those?
emergence, i guess morphogenesis is the most concrete example of it. but emergence occur in every biological system.

>>1703730
those "things" that you see as "pieces" are an interpretation from us.

We identify organisms as organisms because that's convenient for us, and we are wired to do so as mammals. Its was evolutionary rewarding to differentiate life forms. but this doesnt not mean that they are discrete units unbounded to the rest of the phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:59:24 2010 No.1703789 >>1703714 wow thank you dude, you are one of positive contributors to this board.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:59:24 2010 No.1703791

>Because the nature of consciousness is fundamentally different from the nature of matter.
expect that that's total bullshit

>there is no evidence to oppose the idea of dualism.
expect that pretty much everything in the physical world massively influences our consciousness
every taken prozac?
there's strong evidence that implies consciousness is directly linked to our brain, since manipulations in the rain easily influence our mood, memory and personality

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 17:59:24 2010 No.1703792 >>1703755 Science deals with the physical parts. We can't say with any certainty whether all the parts are physical. It's simpler to assume they are, but we can't assume it's true just because it's simpler.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:00:24 2010 No.1703797

>>1703736

Track record, really. Everything we've put a significant effort into studying has ultimately been found to arise from interactions of the constituent systems and not an etheral 'lifeness'.

Ultimately, the scientific method boils down to finding whatever DOES work to describe the system without giving up and saying 'A Wizard Did It'. This is something most people who whinge about science seem not to get. The practical upshot of the scientific method is, therefore, that whatever can be understood, is understandable by science. If the current theories don't work, they are replaced with whatever DOES. If we probe deeper and find the explanation starts to fall apart, we replace it again.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:01:24 2010 No.1703798

>

We identify organisms as organisms because that's convenient for us, and we are wired to do so as mammals. Its was evolutionary rewarding to differentiate life forms. but this doesnt not mean that they are discrete units unbounded to the rest of the phenomena.
wait what?are you one of those gaia/world consciousness idiots?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:01:24 2010 No.1703802

>>1703764
There's nothing wrong with conditional, justified faith in authority. While it's true that Scientist X said so doesn't automatically make it true, if you respect Scientist X, or he is respected by people or institutions you respect, then it should increase your evaluation of how likely it is to be true.

>>1703768
That's a hell of an inb4, man.

>>1703778
>those "things" that you see as "pieces" are an interpretation from us.
>We identify organisms as organisms because that's convenient for us, and we are wired to do so as mammals. Its was evolutionary rewarding to differentiate life forms. but this doesnt not mean that they are discrete units unbounded to the rest of the phenomena.

Not sure where you're reading that I ever implied otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:03:24 2010 No.1703809 >>1703791 holy fuck you can't spell, friendo. i am willing to take poor writing with a grain of salt but a non-native english speaker would find your post totally incomprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:03:24 2010 No.1703811 >>1703764 I was SAYING it wasn't correct. Read first, please.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:03:24 2010 No.1703813

>>1703791
Sure, the weather influences our consciousness.
Our brain chemistry influences our consciousness.
This means our consciousness is living in our meteorological environment, and in our biological environment. It does not mean we ARE the weather system any more than it means we are our biological environment. And yes I have taken prozac. Withdrawal was a bitch. I saw no evidence whatsoever from any substance experimentation that my consciousness is merely my brain, but it rather reaffirmed by understanding that my brain is the environment in which my consciousness is living.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:04:24 2010 No.1703817 >>1703811 I'm saying that just something is a popular attitude amongst the last 100 years of scientists doesn't make that attitude correct.

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 18:06:24 2010 No.1703823

>>1703743
Sorry dude but no.
there are systems that look "simple" which we understand all their laws and variables and initial conditions that govern them, and yet they behave chaotic.

the double pendulum is an easy and illustrative example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum
>>1703755

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:06:24 2010 No.1703824

>>1703792
>We can't say with any certainty whether all the parts are physical. It's simpler to assume they are, but we can't assume it's true just because it's simpler.
In all the history of time, we have never observed anything with a nonphysical part. And "it's simpler" is in fact sufficient reason to assume it's true, all else being equal - Occam's Razor and all that.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:06:24 2010 No.1703825

>>1703798

I personally love that James Lovelock (the guy who created the Gaia hypothesis) thinks the 'world consciousness' people are fucking retarded.

He just thought it was a clever name to give to the concept that the interactions of all systems on earth should have emergent properties just like any other complex system, not that it is alive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:07:24 2010 No.1703829 >>1703813 but you have no evidence for that whatsoever

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:09:24 2010 No.1703838

>>1703823
>there are systems that look "simple" which we understand all their laws and variables and initial conditions that govern them, and yet they behave chaotic.
>the double pendulum is an easy and illustrative example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

The double pendulum is an excellent example... for the other guy. Because, given complete knowledge of the initial state of the pendulum, we can completely describe how it will behave at all points in the future. (By doing the calculations.)

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:11:24 2010 No.1703849

>>1703797
So you're basically saying, there's nothing spiritual, because if there is we haven't proved its necessity yet. That doesn't really follow. Instead of saying "that is wrong", it would seem more prudent to say, "I've seen nothing to suggest that that is right".

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:11:24 2010 No.1703851

>>1703823

Hahahahaha you're funny. The double pendulum and other such systems do exactly what we expect them to, they are just highly sensitive to starting conditions. That's all chaos means in the sense you just described. Our rules do actually lead to exactly what we observe, the only problem is that in really large systems the number of variables is currently too great to handle the problem accurately without taking millions of years - and thats an issue with computing power, not science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:11:24 2010 No.1703853 >>1703823 you don't understand the double pendulum is completely predictable it's complicated, but predictable do you actually argue that humans, at least partially, are not governed by physical laws? what part is that? how does it behave?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:12:24 2010 No.1703855 File: 30 KB, 321x357, sobchak-781317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] fucking biologists, man. it's like Godel and Heisenberg never happened in their version of reality. unique fucking snowflakes that know it all.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:13:24 2010 No.1703860

>>1703813
So you believe that, in principle, someone with complete knowledge of the state of your brain would not be able to predict your actions (by simulating your brain, or even building a new, identical one)?

That necessarily implies there's a point at which you will do something unpredictable - which does imply there's a point at which the atoms in your brain fail to follow the laws of physics, given that you accept the atoms in your brain are influenced by your consciousness in some way.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:14:24 2010 No.1703863

>>1703829
Well, the field of neurology offers no evidence, that much is true. But how could a hard science find such evidence even hypothetically? A lot of people have had a lot of subjective experience that seems to give evidence of duality, and I don't find it rational to discount that kind of evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:15:24 2010 No.1703871 >>1703853 It's impossible to prove whether or not humans are governed by physical laws. Subjective experience seems to suggest not -- at least to me. In the absence of further evidence, that tilts the scale in favor of free will to me.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:16:24 2010 No.1703872

>>1703860
>But how could a hard science find such evidence even hypothetically?
this is exactly how
>That necessarily implies there's a point at which you will do something unpredictable - which does imply there's a point at which the atoms in your brain fail to follow the laws of physics, given that you accept the atoms in your brain are influenced by your consciousness in some way.

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 18:16:24 2010 No.1703873

>>1703792
Science deals with the physical parts.
Physics deals with the physical parts.

Which are completely irrelevant in life forms. because what makes you human is not your atoms, is how you are put together.

Systems theory deal with organization, which is a perspective that is more useful than the physics approach. too bad systems theory is not mainstream yet, and when some professor/scientist claims he is taking a ST approach, half of the time he doesnt.

>>1703802

sorry dude i get confused in the replies. that wasnt for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:17:24 2010 No.1703876 >because what makes you human is not your atoms, is how you are put together. HURDUR I'm finally convinced you are an idiot.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:17:24 2010 No.1703879

>>1703849
>Instead of saying "that is wrong", it would seem more prudent to say, "I've seen nothing to suggest that that is right".

These are really the same statement in probability theory. Science does not make absolute claims, ie, assign a literally 100% probability that there is no non-physical factor influencing consciousness. That there is no evidence to suggest it exists is sufficient to say it does not, with fairly high probability.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:18:24 2010 No.1703880

>>1703860
>which does imply there's a point at which the atoms in your brain fail to follow the laws of physics, given that you accept the atoms in your brain are influenced by your consciousness in some way.
/thread
tell me if you found the magical switch in your brain that doesn't follow physic, soulfags

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:18:24 2010 No.1703881

>>1703849

What do you mean by 'nothing spiritual'? In terms of ethics and sense of self of course I believe in them. In terms of a god equivalent or creative power, that by definition exists outside of the system (or else it couldn't have created it), even if it can enter into the system now that it exists. For this reason, the issue of god is actually impossible to demonstrate either way from inside the universe. I like to believe that there could be, but I know that we cannot actually know unless it turns out there is one, and when we buy the farm he/she/it comes to take us outside the universe to see. Which would be kinda awesome, actually.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:20:24 2010 No.1703884

>>1703872
As long as QM gives a range of acceptable alternatives for every single causal interaction, there is an IMMENSELY large window for the non-physical to operate upon the physical outcomes without violating any laws of physics. In other words, currently, the laws of physics are largely statistical, which leaves a lot of latitude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:20:24 2010 No.1703886 >>1703817 Fair enough, I agree there. But it was a criticism levelled at scientists, so I was just pointing out that scientists don't actually think that way to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:21:24 2010 No.1703890 >>1703873 This is so trivial, and of course science deals with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:21:24 2010 No.1703892 >>1703860 According to QM, 100 identical brains in identical states will operate in 100 different ways. That seems to allow an awful lot of room for something immaterial to be operating on the outcomes.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:21:24 2010 No.1703894

>>1703871
>It's impossible to prove whether or not humans are governed by physical laws. Subjective experience seems to suggest not -- at least to me. In the absence of further evidence, that tilts the scale in favor of free will to me.

No it isn't. Simulate a human perfectly. Does this human behave precisely like the one in the real world? Yes? OK, humans are governed by physical laws.

Obviously this isn't strictly correct, but claiming otherwise is exactly the sort of thing that says, you know, gravity exists and all, but whenever you drop a meatball it falls not because of gravity but because the Flying Spaghetti Monster reaches out a noodle to push it down. Technically possible, but utterly unhelpful and, by Occam's Razor, probably not true.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 18:25:24 2010 No.1703908 >>1703853 >>1703851 >>1703838 the double pendulum is predictable only in certain initial conditions.. still is a "simple" complex system compared to life forms, but one system that is one notch above double pendulum is turbulence.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:25:24 2010 No.1703909

>>1703873

How you are put together is a result of interparticle forces. Still physics.

The physical world doesn't mean physical as in 'lump of wood', it means 'part of the entire observable universe', and the assembly of a human being is very much a part of that. There is much interesting work being done in the biochemical signalling that controls cell differentiation and arrangement, actually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:25:24 2010 No.1703912 >>1703894 Bit circular logic there. >> If you can simulate something perfectly, you know it is subject to laws. But you need to know ALL those laws to begin with. Reality doesn't work how you think it does, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:26:24 2010 No.1703915 >>1703892 No, only according to some interpretation of QM.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:26:24 2010 No.1703916

>>1703892
>>1703884
I'm afraid you really, really don't understand QM. Read up a bit on the many-worlds theory.

Also, QM operates at levels vastly below the level of neurons. While it's true that brains are chaotic systems, ie small changes in initial conditions produce large changes in eventual behavior, there's a theorem in chaos theory/diffEQ which says that _sufficiently small_ changes in input will produce arbitrarily small changes in output. In other words, because the effects at the QM level are so mind-bogglingly small, you'd have to have brains running for years before even the aggregate of all these effects became noticeable - which generally is a lot longer timeframe than we're talking about in these discussions.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:28:24 2010 No.1703923

>>1703908
>the double pendulum is predictable only in certain initial conditions
it's predictable for ALL initial conditions
it's a completely deterministic system
see those nice little equations on the wikipedia site you linked?
they will not suddenly stop giving you solutions after 200 swings.

this just goes to prove that you have no idea about physics whatsoever, you should go back to philosophy, and ask yourself world changing questions like "is stuff, you know actually stuff?"

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:29:24 2010 No.1703926

>>1703912
OK, "perfectly" was perhaps the wrong word.

Simulate it precisely under the current understanding of the laws. If your simulation behaves differently from reality, then yes, there are other laws in play. If it behaves like reality, then you can probably accept there aren't other laws in play here.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 18:29:24 2010 No.1703929 >>1703890 i didnt say it doesnt you retard. you are saying dealing with organization is so trivial.. well i want to see your trophy room, because boy im sure its packed with nobel prices and the UN proclaiming you as the smartest person ever.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:29:24 2010 No.1703932

>>1703908

That used to be true. Actually, nowadays you can simulate it as far as you like and get the correct answer. Just a case of sufficient computing power.

Turbulence is a little more than one notch above the coupled pendulum, but don't worry, we're making good progress.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:32:24 2010 No.1703945 >>1703929 No, the fact that science deals with organization is a trivial fact. He wasn't saying dealing with organization was itself a trivial problem.

:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 18:35:24 2010 No.1703957

>>1703923
>it's a completely deterministic system

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/MathamaticalTopics/ChaoticPendulum/ChaoticPendulum.html

>A double pendulum executes simple harmonic motion (two normal modes) when displacements from equilibrium are small. However, when large displacements are imposed, the non-linear system becomes dramatically chaotic in its motion and demonstrates that deterministic systems are not necessarily predictable.

boy.. im sure you feel stupid.

No worries dude everyone makes mistakes..
But for the next time dont fucking waste my time with your fucking retard statements.. do you think im giving these statements without any solid basis whatsoever, and just talking out from my ass??

You should feet honored that im even replying to your stupid post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:35:24 2010 No.1703959 >>1703915 No, according to all interpretations of QM, all 100 brains would give different results.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:37:24 2010 No.1703972

>>1703892

...eh, not quite. Some may actually behave identically. The outcome is random, that's all.

In any case, most quantum noise is far to small to manifest in a brain; it only tends to show up on systems with only a handful of interactions. Even a single synapse is orders of magnitude too large for QM noise to have an effect, the jitter all just cancels out. You'd expect to have to wait trillions of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe to see the case where they all jitter the same way at once. 100 variables tends to drown out all such quantum weirdery to the point where it effectively doesn't exist, the brain dwarfs that.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:39:24 2010 No.1703984

>>1703957
You're seriously misreading him. He going right out and refers to it as a deterministic system. "Deterministic" means precisely that complete knowledge of initial state is sufficient to predict it forever. By "not predictable" he means you need a high degree of knowledge about the initial conditions to predict it for any long period.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:39:24 2010 No.1703985 [citation needed]

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:39:24 2010 No.1703987

>>1703916
I'm afraid I understand QM better than you.

In many worlds interpretation, the outcome is the same as in any other interpretation. All 100 brains give different results in our "world".

Also, QM operates at levels vastly below the level of neurons. Quantum randomness can be propagated through and amplified by a neural network. It could easily be the underlying factor in free will and consciousness. It is not necessarily true that quantum differences would take long to affect the large system. Given the complexity of the system, it could easily happen in a single brain cycle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:40:24 2010 No.1703991 >>1703972 The odds would be astronomical that any behaved identically.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:41:24 2010 No.1704000
File: 34 KB, 690x656, 1244549427647.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1703957
expect we are not talking about an actual, physical pendulum, because that's subject to environmental influences, but the idealized double pendulum WHICH IS COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE IF YOU PUT ENOUGH COMPUTING POWER IN IT, YOU GODDAMN RETARD.
HARD TO CALCULATE =/= IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE
The fucking solution of the Langrarian was on the wikipedia page RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FUCKING EYES.
jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:42:24 2010 No.1704007 >>1703972 The jitter only cancels out if it's truly random. If it is not random it does not cancel out, but could combine, and account for intentional behavior in the brain.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:43:24 2010 No.1704016

>>1703987
>In many worlds interpretation, the outcome is the same as in any other interpretation. All 100 brains give different results in our "world".
No. In the many-world interpretation, all worlds happen. We can expect (Born's probabilities) to find ourselves in some with higher probability than in others - but all worlds happen. This leaves no room for a nonphysical agent.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:46:24 2010 No.1704026

>>1703957

Aw, how precious. You made a pretty common error there, champ - the SIMPLE. HARMONIC. MOTION. model of the problem breaks down above certain amplitudes. But SHM is strictly an approximation - it SKIPS some of the physical laws, or rounds them down - terms are eliminated from the equations of motion when you show its applicability to the coupled pendulum. It relies on the amplitude being small enough that an angular component is negligible, and ignores the ability of the system to rotate around the pivot points.

The true, full mechanistic description of a coupled pendulum is not given by SHM, and is much more intensive to calculate - BUT GIVES THE PERFECT SOLUTION AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE.

Jesus fucking wept.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:48:24 2010 No.1704031

>>1703987
>Also, QM operates at levels vastly below the level of neurons. Quantum randomness can be propagated through and amplified by a neural network. It could easily be the underlying factor in free will and consciousness. It is not necessarily true that quantum differences would take long to affect the large system. Given the complexity of the system, it could easily happen in a single brain cycle.

As far as we know, they physical world behaves continuously at all levels. This means that factors as small as QM effects could not, in fact, manifest beyond rounding error at the macro level for a very, very long time.

In other words:
It is, fact, necessarily true that quantum differences would take long to affect the large system.
Well, where "necessarily true" means "in the overwhelming majority of cases", and where "overwhelming majority" means something like 99.9999999% of cases.

>>1704007
While true, this would be experimentally detectable. If every brain was behaving in ways which were statistically highly improbable, your theory would gain merit.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:49:24 2010 No.1704035

>>1704016
Experimentally, it is no different. Experimentally, only our world happens. But sure, in the MW interpretation, QM doesn't leave room for hidden variables. I never said it did. I said that QM itself leaves room for hidden variables, which it DOES. QM doesn't imply a particular interpretation.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:52:24 2010 No.1704042

>>1704031
>It is, fact, necessarily true that quantum differences would take long to affect the large system.
This is just false. Any system that is put together with the intention of amplifying quantum differences, can amplify them to a macro scale in nanoseconds.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:52:24 2010 No.1704045

>>1704007

Lovely idea, but the defining characteristic of all studies of quantum effects is that they ARE governed exclusively by probability - the chance you will stray from the average by more than a tiny percentage becomes more unlikely in a power-law fashion, meaning it becomes vanishingly unlikely by the time you reach just, say, one hundred instances - and the rate at which it becomes unlikely accelerates from there. And since the action of neurons is controlled by the average behaviour of millions of neurotransmitter receptors, you'd have to wait a stupidly long period of time to see it do anything other than the average.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:54:24 2010 No.1704052

>>1704031
How would you determine when a brain is behaving in an improbable way? Was it probable or improbable for Einstein to think up General Relativity, and how do you know? Einstein surely thought it was probable, but the idea that you can but some kind of thermodynamic probability on it and figure out what a brain is likely to do ahead of time on that basis seems absurd.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:55:24 2010 No.1704055

>>1704000
the equation for something as trivial as a double pendulum just works in the computer..
In a simulation..
For a period of time... ( small errors in computer calculations will eventually led to unpredictability)

if we cant even model a fucking double pendulum, are we expected to model life??

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:56:24 2010 No.1704064 >>1704045 Most physicists like the idea of QM being randomly driven, but it's just one of many interpretations, with no evidence favoring any interpretations.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:58:24 2010 No.1704069

>>1703987

Actually, quantum randomness is diminished by a brain's action. Each neuron stamps out virtually any quantum blip within it - you need literally millions of 'blips', ALL AT ONCE, OF THE SAME SORT, IN THE SAME NEURON, for it to behave in a non-classical way even once - and then you need that signal to be one of the many that just dissipate or are damped out by the bulk system behaviour in the neural net (most signals are 'muffled out' - nerve agents stop this happening, which is why the system fries itself and kills you).

Ultimately, it is HUGELY unlikely any abnormal effect will ever break through

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 18:58:24 2010 No.1704071

>>1704035
Many-worlds wins outright, on current evidence. The collapse postulate is ridiculous. Here is a list of things it would be, if true:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

frosbyteLT1 Sat Sep 4 18:59:24 2010 No.1704075

Science is a fancy name for a method of organizing thoughts and ideas and then testing them against skepticism via experimentation.

If there is a limit to science, it comes from only one of three places.

1) The hard limit of the human brain to comprehend new experiences and formulate conclusions about them which can be tested (this limit has been greatly subverted by the advent of computers, which can think about things in ways the healthy, neuro-typical human brain is awful at doing).

2)The hard limit of the human sensory system and its ability to perceive reality around us (subverted by the advent of technology that augments our ability to see, hear, and otherwise perceive in ways we naturally can't, such as telescopes, infrared, microscopes, radar, etc)

3) Human motivation to seek truth over simply finding evidence to substantiate the things the researcher is already motivated to believe/human motivation to contradict established canon even at the risk to ones self and career in the name of advancement.

Essentially what I'm saying is that as long as technology continues to advance, Science extends its reach exponentially, because 1) and 2) become less and less of an issue. That's why we've learned more about the universe in the last 100 years than we did in all the years humanity existed leading up to them.

4) Some unforeseen hard limit placed on the advancement of our tools that prevents us from growing - this is something we've thought we've encountered on several occasions, but each time we do, we prove ourselves wrong. (I'm looking at you, relativity)

The real sticking point, now and into the future, is human motivation to continue learning about the things we can barely comprehend, even with the help of our amazing technological advancements, in place of being consumed by our petty individual agendas.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:01:24 2010 No.1704080 >>1704064 Actually, no. They all involve randomness to some degree - the Born probabilities. Even in many-worlds there exists randomness as to which world you find yourself in, although it's not entirely clear what that should mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:03:24 2010 No.1704088 the whole thread seems interesting but i dont have time to read it through archiveee this plz?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:03:24 2010 No.1704089 >>1704075 THANK YOU

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:04:24 2010 No.1704092 >>1704069 You're assuming too much. We don't know if the brain amplifies quantum blips, and we don't know if quantum blips in the brain operate in any kind of synchronicity.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:06:24 2010 No.1704097

>>1704080
There's no randomness in many worlds, you're in all worlds. You separately experience each one. There's no intrinsic randomness in hidden variables. There's just the randomness of any kind of statistical physics, which is not an inherent randomness, just an effective one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:06:24 2010 No.1704099 >>1704088 archive nao

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:07:24 2010 No.1704107 >>1704071 I agree that collapse is silly, but MW is also silly. Hidden variables FTW.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:10:24 2010 No.1704115 >>1704107 It has been proven that hidden variables cannot be true. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:11:24 2010 No.1704119

>>1704075
The experimentation in science is limited to empirical experimentation, and so its hypotheses limited to those that can be tested empirically. So science is limited to that realm. This rules out all fields of mathematics, philosophy, ethics, religion, art, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:11:24 2010 No.1704122 >>1704115 No, that proves that hidden variables conforming to certain assumptions cannot be true.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:12:24 2010 No.1704129

>>1704107
I'm assuming you mean non-local hidden variables. Physics, as far as we can tell, is local in every regard. Why do you think locality should break down?

Unless you actually did mean local hidden variables, in which case, I thought Bell's Theorem had settled that.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:14:24 2010 No.1704139

Am i the only one that thinks all that misunderstanding and puzzling about quantum physics is just brought about the ridiculous prejudice, that our experience of the macroscopic world somehow has to be mimicked by the microscopic world?
i never found it hard to accept, that an electron is simply not in any specific place, but is rather in many places at once with different probabilities.
people seem to have such a hard time stopping to think about particles as solid balls, racing through space

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:17:24 2010 No.1704151

>>1704119
Well, yes and no. It can make a number of artistic, ethical, philosophical, and religious questions disappear by explaining why exactly we have a particular sensation. Most open questions come from two sensations or intuitions which contradict at some level, and the assumption that both have equally valid reasons why we experience them - if science explains why we experience something, and it turns out that it's because it was evolutionarily beneficial to reduce the feeling of pain if it went on to long (for example), the question rather goes away.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:18:24 2010 No.1704158

>>1704000
when you simulate and restrict the pendulum you turn a complex system into a simple one making it predictable.

which has no use. because theoretical double pendulums are not double pendulums.

read. reductionism converting from complex to simple systems.

Now picture the same thing with other WAY more complex systems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:19:24 2010 No.1704159 >>1704122 What is worse : non-locality or counterfactual definiteness?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:21:24 2010 No.1704174 >>1704139 the racing balls in space is still being used in QM sir.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:21:24 2010 No.1704178

>>1704119

...mathematics is testable in that it is subject to constraints - it must be self consistent, which can be checked. Mathematical ideas must be consistent with all of mathematics, just as theories of reality must be consistent with all of reality. All the other things you're spot on about though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:21:24 2010 No.1704179 JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ALRIGHT SCI I'M KEEPING THIS THREAD AFLOAT AND WHEN IT DIES I'M POSTING A NEW VERSION OF THIS TROLL THREAD BECAUSE YOU DESERVE THIS PUNISHMENT FOR RESPONDING TO IT.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:23:24 2010 No.1704190 File: 19 KB, 525x521, 1283574878276.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1698247

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:24:24 2010 No.1704195 >>1704179 >i have no idea whats going on in this thread

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:24:24 2010 No.1704196

>>1704174

It's not held as correct though, just easier to work with than what the theories indicate is actually happening. Strictly everything is a waveparticle mess of stuff, we just use particles and waves when they are 'dominant' to save money on ibuprofen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:25:24 2010 No.1704201 why not every single thread in /sci/ is like this theres like 10 troll threads at this time, and one like this every week or so

frosbyteLT1 Sat Sep 4 19:26:24 2010 No.1704205

>>1704119

>The experimentation in science is limited to empirical experimentation, and so its hypotheses limited to those that can be tested empirically. So science is limited to that realm. This rules out all fields of mathematics, philosophy, ethics, religion, art, etc.

Mathematics is a language used to describe the behavior of things in theoretical physics. Mathematics is 100% empirically testable. Put two apples on your kitchen table. Eat one. How many are left? Subtraction.

Philosophy: If a philosophical statement is made about anything concrete and is actually true, it can be tested. If it is TOTALLY impossible to test a philosophical notion, it's probably because its an idiotic/irrelevant one (what if the whole world is just in your imagination, man), or because it deals exclusively in things that only exist as concepts in the human mind... such as ETHICS and ART.

Ethics: We make those up, bro. Why does this example make any fucking sense to you? Morality is a 100% imagined value. What the fuck do you think you're saying about science?

And further to the point: science can study the behavior of people acting under different ethical systems and their effect on societies, that's what we call 'sociology'.

Art: Actually, Science can and has begun decoding a very great deal about the nature of what humans recognize as beauty and how we react emotionally to different forms of conceptual, visual, and sonic stimuli - it's rather more concrete than art-fags would like to fancy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:27:24 2010 No.1704206 This seems like a good discussion of what the possibilities are between quantum locality/nonlocality, hidden variables or otherwise: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609163v2.pdf Haven't gotten a chance to read it all yet though.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:29:24 2010 No.1704218

>>1704196
fact of the matter is that QM dont actually know what is saying. END OF STORY.

schrodinger wave/particle equation KIND OF explains the two slit experiment. but that doesnt say that is true.
still everyone rush to QM = FACT.

thats the whole point of this thread

Is QM more than just a social construct?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:29:24 2010 No.1704220

>>1704205
>Mathematics is a language used to describe the behavior of things in theoretical physics. Mathematics is 100% empirically testable. Put two apples on your kitchen table. Eat one. How many are left? Subtraction.

Fuck no. Pure mathematics exists as a thing in itself. Because nature largely follows laws that relate to the laws of number, many things, like numbers of apples. Can be modeled through mathematics. However, mathematics is never tested empirically. It is always proven from first principles. Much of mathematics cannot be related to the physical world in any direct way at all.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 19:31:24 2010 No.1704226 OP here i dont support where this thread is heading. but hey we have fun for a while

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:31:24 2010 No.1704227

>still everyone rush to QM = FACT.
because the basic concepts of quantum mechanics are essential for describing the world.
discrete energy levels of atoms and molecules only arise from quantum mechanics, but are absolutely necessary to describe the world.
the problem is, after all that nice explaining, a whole lot of ugly shit pops up

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:31:24 2010 No.1704231 >>1704205 Wow... the scope of your investigation of truth seems depressingly 2-dimensional. There's more in heaven and earth than is drempt of in your philosophy, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:34:24 2010 No.1704241 >>1704218 Well it predict things very well actually. But it is incomplete for sure. We have the choice to add hidden variables or to introduce a stochastic term in Schrödinger's equation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:36:24 2010 No.1704252 >>1704158 No, dude, just stop. Complex systems are completely simulate-able to arbitrary precision, ignoring QM effects which take forever to be noticeable in virtually all cases. This is a fact which is not in dispute.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:38:24 2010 No.1704271 >>1704241 Or we could go with the vastly more probably many-world interpretation, which just works.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:40:24 2010 No.1704273

>>1704218

...wait, what? No. Wave/particle duality isn't a problem, it's just that our brains evolved in a situation where things appear as waves or particles - in actuality, wave behaviour and particle behaviour are just two emergent behaviours of one class of object under different conditions. As you progress through a physics degree, you tend to find that the people who struggle to get to grips with this stuff drop out, since it involves a sort of thinking beyond simple visualisation. You also tend to get the out-and-out mathmos who just don't visualise, and only use the equations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:40:24 2010 No.1704274 >>1704252 Depends if you use hidden variables, multi-universes or counterfactual definiteness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:40:24 2010 No.1704276 >>1704252 they arent and OP already explain why with sources. >>1703714 so YOU STOP

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:41:24 2010 No.1704279 >>1704231 Not the dude you're talking about, but it seems to me science has got the "investigate reality" sector covered pretty damn well. You're free to look for truths which are not a part of reality... if you can even define what that should mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:42:24 2010 No.1704280 >>1704220 It is 'testable' though, it is required to be fully self consistent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:42:24 2010 No.1704281 omg op might not be an idiot

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:46:24 2010 No.1704305

>>1704276

Actually, his sources were being misinterpreted. Ths Sciencemag only denounced an idiotic perspective on only one kind of experiment being valid, a common misconception but not a real problem in science itself. The harvard one was based on a half-understood reading of a simplistic reference to chaos theory without an appreciation of the fact that SHM is a very crude approximation of a coupled pendulum, and the full mechanistic description doesn't break down, but predicts perfectly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:47:24 2010 No.1704309 this was an awesome thread i follow it since yesterday and made a couple of replies archive plzzz

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:49:24 2010 No.1704328 >>1704305 predicts a " simulation of a double pendulum" (simple) after some slight adjustments, not a double pendulum (complex) what part you cant understand?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:50:24 2010 No.1704337

>>1704276
No he fucking didn't. You seem to be under the impression that [the fact that we don't understand how exactly a complex behavior arises from a chaotic system] implies that [simulating the chaotic system would not deterministically produce the complex behavior], and in this your are absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

There is literally no serious opposition to this.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:56:24 2010 No.1704353

>>1704328

That's what the SHM thing does. Or can't YOU read?

>For small angles these equations become linear, with solutions that are linear combinations of the two normal modes of vibration.

Oh look, it's an approximation

>Increasing the initial displacement to large angles results in chaotic motion which is quite fascinating and entertaining to watch

Oh look, if you BREAK THE ASSUMPTIONS then it STOPS PREDICTING CORRECTLY

If you don't make the assumptions, you have a much, much more complex set of equations, but they do predict perfectly and at any point in the future you wish. Chaotic systems are not *actually* unpredictable contrary to what popular culture says, they just do not allow ANY minor assumptions in the calculations.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:56:24 2010 No.1704355

>>1704337
are you serious?? OP actually brought a paper that was an opposition to what you are actually saying stupid fuck.
and im sure theres no just 1 paper that oppose to this.

yea sure we get the variables and initial conditions and run some simulation in our computer.. but whats the point of that if it doesnt have any predictive power.
it has no entailment with the real world you seem to ignore.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 19:58:24 2010 No.1704367

>>1704271
Many worlds works fine mathematically, but it is absurd philosophically, which is probably why most scientists reject it. You're creating an infinite number of additional universes in every infinitesimal unit of time. I'm not even sure its logically consistent. Why can a particle interact with itself in another "world" before an interaction and not after an interaction?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:00:24 2010 No.1704373

>>1704355
No, he didn't. The paper he linked doesn't oppose this at all, for reasons described above. In fact, one of the things he linked specifically referred to it as a deterministic system, which means precisely that its behaviors can be completely predicted - ie, determined - from knowledge of initial conditions.

These simulations have excellent predictive power. They have, in fact, arbitrarily good predictive power by taking sufficiently precise measurements of initial conditions, because chaotic systems in reality have invariable proved to be continuous.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:01:24 2010 No.1704379

>>1704353
>minor.

so you are saying that non-linear systems are very hard to emulate because it requires to know every condition and variable that affects the system

but if you remove those unknown/minor variables in a simulation you have a simple predictable system.

Sure physics so far has being good in predicting simple systems that are not affected with minor changes that can be neglected. TOO BAD most systems in nature are fucking non-linear.

So the transformation from complex to simple systems is completely useless.. there goes fucking biology

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:04:24 2010 No.1704388 >>1704373 do we have to go through the deterministic but not predictable thing again?? either you are a troll or you are officially in a point that you wont listen.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:06:24 2010 No.1704398

>>1704367
Things which are absurd philosophically have proven true time and time again. It was absurd that man should be related to beasts. It was absurd that the Earth should not be the center of the universe. It was absurd that there should be a universal speed limit. "Philosophically absurd" is not a real argument.

Anyway, you're not creating an infinite number of worlds. You're creating a finite number. The interactions are explained nicely by decoherence.

Hey look, actual research papers Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:06:24 2010 No.1704400

>>1704355

The only paper he brought wasn't actually addressing chaotic system. That was a non-peer-reviewed web page with a pre-university level of work, meant to help out kiddies doing school science reports and he misinterpreted it quite badly.

On the other hand, here's three papers actively using solutions of chaotic systems:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t256lv7u69715663/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1674-1056/19/7/070507?fromSearchPage=true

http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/27/7/070504?fromSearchPage=true

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:06:24 2010 No.1704401 File: 39 KB, 600x450, 1279953263177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1698176

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:08:24 2010 No.1704406

>>1698176
1 Corinthians 1: 18-31
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

frosbyteLT1 Sat Sep 4 20:08:24 2010 No.1704408

>>1704231

No, there isn't, sorry. My 'mindest' assumes nothing about the greater scope of reality I can't observe; on the contrary, I refuse the common fallacy most human beings (such as yourself) inevitably fall prey to... The assumption that because you hear your own thoughts, they are somehow relevant to the greater scope of reality.

Human art, ethics, and all other social constructs are not relevant to anything outside of the narrow social circles that spawn them. 'Heaven and earth' care nothing for the vast number of incorrect conclusions mankind makes about any possible subject based on entirely fallacious logic/blind presumption (philosophy), how people choose to treat each other (ethics), or what people think is interesting or aesthetically pleasing (art). All of these 'pursuits' are farts in the intellectual wind - Science, at least, measures things that exist for longer than a cosmic peco-second.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:08:24 2010 No.1704409 >>1704388 Their non predictability is a function of the computational power available. As computers get more powerful, more systems can be predicted as we become capable of solving their full equations.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:10:24 2010 No.1704418

>>1704379
You don't ignore the minor effects. You approximate them, arbitrarily well, depending on how accurate you want your simulation. For literally any finite degree of accuracy, you can measure initial conditions sufficiently well to produce that degree of accuracy. This falls out of the continuity of reality. Therefore the models can reflect reality arbitrarily well. This makes them extremely useful for obvious reasons.

>>1704388
Yes. Yes we do. Deterministic means predictable. This is what the word means.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:13:24 2010 No.1704429

>>1704400
im talking about this

>>1704400

>>1703714
Im not going to do your fucking job.. sources are used as references. you just post a bunch of links. i dont have an account cant read them, and wont do so, please paste whatever point you want to prove that comes from the paper

i even bother to read the abstracts but it doesnt say anything about predicting
you just cant flood me with papers and expect me to read them

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:15:24 2010 No.1704439 >>1704418 But QM is not deterministic, predictable. So there is a limit for the accuracy.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:17:24 2010 No.1704452

>>1704220

Natural maths is part of the laws of reality, like gravity. There's a single universe, any more universes we find just mean we have to revise what we thought of as the universe (like when we realised there was a fuckload more space out there, we didn't say it was new universes, we revised our estimate of the size of the universe upward and called the new shit we found galaxies). The single universe divides into bits of universe and the bits organise and interact according to the discovered and undiscovered laws of maths. Because that's all they are - x bits of (U/x) in different ratios. And they divide and divide and divide. (Making the universe look like its expanding.)

Humans are able to identify these number laws at work, because they're unbreakable and fucking everywhere, and have classified them into what we call 'numbers' and 'maths'. Human theories of number and maths are absolutely testable, that is fucking done and dusted. To say the laws of maths are derived from first principles is to find the crux - they are, but then so is the universe.

Physicists hate the idea that a universe dividing and dividing into bits of universe might at the heart behave just like what they call numbers and maths. And mathematicians hate the idea that they don't speak a language, they explore the reality works (why the fuck they don't like it I don't know). Everyone falsely anthropomorphises numbers and maths like they're special human things, but they ain't unless you're a creationist. The maths was working before we got here.

All of the physical world can be related to mathematics, at their fundamental level.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:21:24 2010 No.1704468

>>1704439
Depends on your interpretation, but we've been over this above. A quick summary: at the macro scale, those effects are utterly unnoticeable for ridiculously long periods of time. If we were at that limit, we could model the behavior of Earth's weather - a notoriously chaotic system - for centuries, probably millennia, before any conventional measure of weather would begin to detect differences from the model. (This assumes your model is off-planet somewhere, say Pluto, or you're modeling weather in the past.)

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:22:24 2010 No.1704473

>>1704418
you realize that the d pendulum is affected vastly by slight changes in initial conditions.
If you made "approximations" "arbitrary well" as substitution of minor factors, you are invariable open to some error. a slight error that will have a huge outcome making your model completely unpredictable.

>Deterministic means predictable. This is what the word means.

after reading that statement i realize you are incredible fucking stupid or ignorant and i wont use my attention in you anymore. if you are interested why you are so fucking wrong

http://kiekeben.com/predict.html go here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:22:24 2010 No.1704475 this thread really should be archived but since I'm already typing this with sleep paralysis I'm too lazy to log on to 4chanarchive... so ARCHIVE THIS SHIT

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:25:24 2010 No.1704487 >>1704452 Math models reality. Reality behaves in ways which mesh with math surprisingly well. This does not mean they are literally the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:27:24 2010 No.1704502 http://4chanarchive.org/ the only /sci/ thread archive it naw

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:29:24 2010 No.1704510 ARCHIVE THIS SHIT need 5 more

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:31:24 2010 No.1704516 wow 300 posts this is pretty unusual

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:32:24 2010 No.1704520

>>1704473
Of course you're open to error. This is what "arbitrarily well" means - not infinitely well, but if you say any specific finite amount of error is unacceptable, that can be avoided.

Say you wanted to model accurately - to within a micron and a millisecond - a human brain for the next ten years. You could do this with sufficiently precise measurements.
This is not a subject of serious debate.

And the thing you linked is just making a diagonalization argument which is completely irrelevant in this context. Did you even read it?

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:33:24 2010 No.1704524

>>1704487
>Reality behaves in ways which mesh with math surprisingly well.

It's just shocking isn't it? why, it might even be proof of god! Or it might be because a mathematically consistent reality existed before a human came along and started counting rocks. The earth's elliptical orbit is some shit hot natural maths, right there. Really not trolling, really not (and not OP either lol)... but as soon as ya got a universe, and it exands, it becomes bits and more bits and more bits, right? And before they get complex, they're simple.

First principle - shit exists. Universe = 1.

>>	:D !!s2uh28knASO Sat Sep 4 20:33:24 2010 No.1704525 nice this still on, hope it was informative for everyone

HERE are your damn papers part 1 Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:37:24 2010 No.1704538

>>1704429

I don't really need my papers, but I will anyways. I can quote his own, and since he ignored its proper context this should be fucking funny.

>Rather than a reductionist viewpoint (that is, a deterministic genetic view), the pluralism of causes and effects in biological networks is better addressed by observing, through quantitative measures, multiple components simultaneously, and by rigorous data integration with mathematical models (2). Such a systemwide perspective (so-called systems biology) on component interactions is required so that network properties, such as a particular functional state or robustness (3), can be quantitatively understood and rationally manipulated.

The reductionism discussed in the paper is nothing to do with chaotic systems, but the debunked idea that all biological behaviour arises solely from expression of genes - and not from the subsequent interaction of proteins and equilibrium systems. This is indeed referred to as reductionism, but is entirely different to the sort he thinks he is referring to. It is a common enough error though, damn biologists love using words to mean about sixteen different things depending on sub field.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:37:24 2010 No.1704539

>>1704520
Wat? we cant simulate the brain what are you talking about.
Dont you see that the whole point is that even a FUCKING SLIGHT ERROR .00000000001% error is enough to make the system chaotic??

dont you see a problem with that??

i thought you would understand..

you obviously didnt.. cant do anything else

Part 2 Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:38:24 2010 No.1704545

>>1704538

Hokay, now to go to my papers. Lets only bother with the first, it's the nicest.

>Chaotic or hyperchaotic systems of ODEs are often used to model our
natural world, so it is important to study and understand their structure and behaviour. It is well-known that many such systems do not have precise analytical solutions (or a closed form). Several numeric-analytic methods have
been proposed and successfully solved some chaotic and hyperchaotic systems,
including fractional systems: the Adomian decomposition method [1–4], the
differential transform method [5], the variational iteration method (VIM)
[6, 7], the homotopy analysis method and the homotopy-perturbation method
[8, 9]. However, such analytical techniques normally require some sort of
linearization techniques.
Of course, in contrast, numerical techniques like the Runge-Kutta method
are commonly used for solving chaotic systems due to their flexibility and ease
of computation. Nevertheless, such methods have some limitations, and their
reliability is also frequently in doubt because they react too sensitively to time
step size to be dependable [10]. Also, since computer simulations are known to
have finite precision, we need more mathematical tools to confirm simulation
results.

cont...

Part 3, Bitches Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:38:24 2010 No.1704549

>>1704545

That is to say,
>many such systems do not have precise analytical solutions (or a closed form)

...so some do have simple analytic solutions...

>Several numeric-analytic methods have
been proposed and successfully solved some chaotic and hyperchaotic systems,
including fractional systems

...Partially numeric solutions exist for many that can't be done just analytically, including fractional systems... (this often requires parts of the problem to be linearisable, no this does not remove generality so it doesn't approximate)

And lastly...
>numerical techniques like the Runge-Kutta method
are commonly used for solving chaotic systems due to their flexibility and ease
of computation.

These methods can solve ANY chaotic system, but the precision of the output (and therefore distance into the future they work) is limited by computer power. They are solvable, just it can take a REALLLY long time for more difficult problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:41:24 2010 No.1704560 >>1704549 ZZZ the fact that not even yourself understand what you are saying is hilarious

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:42:24 2010 No.1704566 File: 8 KB, 200x200, 00021DB9-FCA3-12CC-AA670C01AC1BF814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1704545 >>1704549

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:43:24 2010 No.1704570

>>1704539

Error doesn't make the chaos. a .000000000001 error just means the guy will do something imperceptibly different, e.g. maybe he's leaning about a hundredth of a micrometer more to the left.

Chaos in the scientific sense means that small ASSUMPTIONS lead to large errors. All you need to do is make the assumptions essentially nonexistant. The degree to which things swing out of control is actually often very easy to determine for a chaotic system, and can be used to select how precise you must be in order to avoid an error.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:46:24 2010 No.1704585

>>1704560

What's not to get? It relates methods of solving chaotic systems. Some may be done analytically, but require that you make no assumptions. Some can be solved with the help of numerical methods. The hardest of all can only be done with numerical methods, and take a lot of computing power to solve.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:52:24 2010 No.1704610

>>1704539
I understand what you are trying to say. It's transparently obvious that you haven't taken a course on dynamical systems, which makes it hard for you to talk about the subject, but I understand you.

The thing is that small errors only create chaos after some amount of time. The smaller the error, the longer the time. It's impossible to eliminate error entirely, but you can give estimates of how accurate your measurements are, which will tell you how far from reality your model will be after any given amount of time.

For this reason, if you want your model to reflect reality to some degree for some period of time, this will always be possible by taking sufficiently precise measurements.

Let's summarize:
Errors introduce chaos. However, it is possible to predict how much chaos - deviation from reality - will occur after a given amount of time. Reduce the error and you reduce the chaos. Therefore, models remain extremely useful, even when discussing complex systems. Yes, all models with only finite precision will break down eventually, but no, this doesn't really matter in practice.

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:52:24 2010 No.1704614

>>1704549
>>1704545
>>1704538

Fucking notepad cocking up the line formatting goddamn. If you really want I could repost it more legibly, but I would hope you people are capable of following a sentence from one line to another.

...maybe I'm being optimistic though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:56:24 2010 No.1704634 >>1704610 no that guy but you are talking about dynamics in simple systems. Modeling complex systems is not just impossible but stupid and pointless, you want to keep your models simple.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:57:24 2010 No.1704643 >>1704560 Not the dude who posted that, but the gist of it as pertains to this discussion is obvious - chaotic systems can be solved to arbitrary precision. Different methods provide different degrees of precision on different sorts of systems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 20:57:24 2010 No.1704645 >>1704614 i will like a better format yes. just kidding i didnt even read your posts

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:00:24 2010 No.1704660

>>1704634
No. No I'm not. In fact, I'm specifically talking about chaotic systems - simple systems, ie, linear ones and those in dimensions less than three, are in fact predictable to infinite precision. Chaotic systems are not predictable to infinite precision, but they are predictable to any arbitrary finite degree of precision.

Also, we model chaotic systems all the time in quantum physics and aerodynamics and meteorology and electrical engineering and a thousand other fields. Why? Because they reflect reality really, really well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:01:24 2010 No.1704668 >>1704645 Thought as much, it is a fuckoff huge wall of text.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:09:24 2010 No.1704705 >>1704660 chaotic =/ complex have to step in on this one

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:15:24 2010 No.1704739 posting in epic thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:17:24 2010 No.1704749 >>1704705 So what, precisely, is a complex system? A chaotic system is a well-defined mathematical concept. "Complexity" is also a well-defined mathematical concept, at least in the sense of computability, but I doubt that's what you meant. So... what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:18:24 2010 No.1704754 316 posts ; first time i see a thread on /sci/ with that ammount of posts

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:21:24 2010 No.1704771 >>1704749 standard article on complex system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system Chaos is special and complex systems are general thats the difference :)

Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:31:24 2010 No.1704819

>>1704771
Complex adaptive systems and nonlinear systems are special cases of chaotic systems, mathematically. The only distinction between chaotic and complex systems are that the category "complex" also includes simple, ie, nonchaotic systems. Everything I've said stands.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:34:24 2010 No.1704838 >>1704819 complex includes simple?? you just went full retard, stop talking from your ass for a second Also i took a applied dynamics class last term.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:35:24 2010 No.1704844 >>1704838 The category of complex systems includes the category of linear and other simple systems, yes. In the same way that the category of complex numbers includes the category of real numbers. It's in your own damn definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:39:24 2010 No.1704859 >>1704844 i dont know about numbers but you are wrong in your other statement. if you are so sure lets see a source. at least i post the wikipedia article

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:41:24 2010 No.1704866 >>1704844 are you a math major or comp sci?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:44:24 2010 No.1704875 >>1704866 Dual major, actually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:45:24 2010 No.1704881 >>1704875 no surprise im from the field of math biology grad student i have a undergrad ee degree. i find somewhat fun arguing with you. we surely wont get to any resolution soon

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:48:24 2010 No.1704893 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:49:24 2010 No.1704903 dont 404 on me

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:51:24 2010 No.1704904 yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 4 21:53:24 2010 No.1704916 shabam

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 5 00:48:24 2010 No.1705811 bump

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 5 00:49:24 2010 No.1705815 toasting in epic thread

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]