Re: [asa] Random and design

Thanks for this clarification. This is exactly what I have not been able to
grasp, and perhaps you can further assist. (highschool science teachers don't
get to spend much time at this level.)

So which way is the correct way to teach the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
Is it a limitation of our knowledge only? I.e. an electron can have a definite
position & velocity but we just will never be able to measure both? OR is it a
limitation on the reality of an electron itself? I.e. there is no exact
location or velocity for this wave-like thing in the first place for anybody
(even God) to know. There is a difference between these to my way of thinking.

To allow a total non-causality (in theory & philosophy no less) seems
indistinguishable from "supernatural" --albeit subatomic. Do quantum
physisicsts acknowledge, then that science has reached its permanent boundary?

I realize these are nearly century old questions, but they still blow my mind,
and your patiently educating me in this is appreciated.

--merv

Quoting Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>:

> Despite the limitations on our
> predictive knowledge imposed by quantum indeterminancy and the error
> amplification from chaos theory, every event is still assumed to have natural
>
> causal links according to scientific thought & investigation (M.N). So
> "randomness" then is no more than our perspective from ignorance.
>
> (My highlighting.) This is not what quantum mechanics teaches. QM assigns
> probability distribution functions (e.g., Gaussians) to physical phenomena.
> A distribution of events for a given kind of phenomenon after a large number
> of measurements will look like the applicable distribution function.
> Randomness means that the location of a particular event on its distribution
> function is unpredictable, and unpredictable in this case means there is no
> physical cause. QM predicts only probabilities and claims that more detailed
> predictions are not possible.
>
> So why does a particular particle do what it does? We can assume God knows,
> but we can't know. Particles act as if they have minds of their own. Many
> experiments support this.
>
> In hard science, in the environment I was in, random always meant the
> inability to predict the location of a particular event on its distribution
> function. On this list random means lots of different things, so there's a
> need to define the word here before using it.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mrb22667@kansas.net<mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>
> To: David Opderbeck<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design
>
>
> Quoting David Opderbeck
> <dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>>:
>
> ..
> > Maybe another way to frame this is as an epistemic issue: is something
> > "random" merely because it *appears* random to us? Do we allow that
> there
> > might be causes that are beyond our capability to perceive that, if
> known,
> > would demonstrate seemingly random events to in fact be caused? Or,
> stated
> > theologically, isn't the operation of providence often a mystery to us?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "if a random systems shows no evidence of
> > being guided naturally." I understand, in a very basic way, the notion
> of
> > quantum indeterminacy. I guess I would distinguish between "guided" and
> > "determined." At the quantum level, things aren't "determined," but
> they
> > are "guided" by deep fundamental laws. A wide variety of things can
> happen
> > at the quantum level, but not just *anything* can happen.
> >
> ..
>
> I share in the skepticism (if I understand your comments correctly)
> regarding
> the term "randomness" and the casual way in which we throw it around in
> science
> and math as if it had no philosophical implication. The quotation marks
> ought
> to be a permanent part of that word IMO. Despite the limitations on our
> predictive knowledge imposed by quantum indeterminancy and the error
> amplification from chaos theory, every event is still assumed to have
> natural
> causal links according to scientific thought & investigation (M.N). So
> "randomness" then is no more than our perspective from ignorance. Just as
> we
> easily recognize the pseudorandom status of the determined output from a
> random
> number generator, so also the status of natural events as "random" begins
> to
> unravel as our knowledge of the causal effects increases -- or so goes the
> scientific credo. For the scientifically minded to depart from this item
> of
> faith would be truly bizarre, would it not? And if there is no such thing
> as
> true randomness, how could anything ever be distinguished as unguided?
> (or
> guided?) The whole question becomes a meaningless semantic except as an
> article of faith.
>
> --merv
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 17 12:47:25 2006