Re: [asa] Random and design

Assertion that quantum indeterminancy is fundamental does not necessarily
imply a limitation on God's knowledge of real things. If position &
momentum aren't the kinds of things that can have simultaneously sharp
values then saying that God knows the simultaneous values of position &
momentum with unlimited precision is like saying that God knows the color of
justice.

& in QM position(q) & momentum(p) aren't the kinds of things that can
simultaneously have precise numerical values. They are operators that don't
commute -
pq - qp = h/2*pi*i. That mathematical relationship means (a) that p & q
can't both be just a single number times the unit operator (& thus can't be
said to have a single numerical value) & (b) that the rms deviations of p &
q from the mean, dp and dq, satisfy dp*dq = or > h/4*pi, which is the
uncertainty principle.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: 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.

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 15:46:28 2006