Probability of nature coming up with Beethoven's 'Fate' by chance?

[shunyadragon]

100%.

The odds of something happening once it's happened are 100%.

I disagree, the probability (odd odds?)of any cause and effect outcomes do not change whether the the event has happened or not. In nature the outcome of cause and effect outcomes are based on Natural Laws, natural processes, available components, and the environment. If conditions are right rest assured the outcome is 100% it will happen. Actually 'probability does not even apply in by far most cause and effect outcomes in nature,

The horrendous dishonest misuse of probability by ID proponents creates a 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors' view of science.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree, the probability (odd odds?)of any cause and effect outcomes do not change whether the the event has happened or not. In nature the outcome of cause and effect outcomes are based on Natural Laws, natural processes, available components, and the environment. If conditions are right rest assured the outcome is 100% it will happen. Actually 'probability does not even apply in by far most cause and effect outcomes in nature,

The horrendous dishonest misuse of probability by ID proponents creates a 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors' view of science.

The difficulty here is that the most basic laws are probabilistic, not deterministic. And, mixed with sensitive dependence on initial conditions, small differences in initial conditions can lead to large differences in outcome. So those probabilities can produce large scale changes.

 

[shunyadragon]

The difficulty here is that the most basic laws are probabilistic, not deterministic. And, mixed with sensitive dependence on initial conditions, small differences in initial conditions can lead to large differences in outcome. So those probabilities can produce large scale changes.

I believe you missed the point of the application of probability. The above statement just increases the fog index, and if true science is not predictable and consistent. You are unnecessarily appealing to a wild free for all butterfly hypothesis.

I seriously disagree that small differences in initial conditions can lead to large differences in outcome beyond the limited range of possible outcomes. So yes, those probabilities can produce large scale changes, but always be within a range of possible outcomes for every series of possible outcomes even though small change lead to 'wide 'range of outcomes,' but like in weather, small variations lead to a wide range of possible outcomes, but weather will always be weather. Chaos Theory adequately describes this variability over time.

I said if the initial conditions remain the same the outcomes will only fall into a range of outcomes constrained by Natural Laws, natural processes, materials available, and environment. IF the materials available and the environment changes than then the game changes.

I go with Karl Popper who proposed that our physical nature is simply deterministic, but science is indeterministic, therefore science can only falsify theories and hypothesis and not prove anything, and no basic laws, theories and hypothesis we develop will always have a degree of a tentative nature they are not probabilistic.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe you missed the point of the application of probability. The above statement just increases the fog index, and if true science is not predictable and consistent. You are unnecessarily appealing to a wild free for all butterfly hypothesis.

Well, the sensitive dependence on initial conditions is a known, measured, and valid aspect of many physical situations. It is NOT simply speculation.

I seriously disagree that small differences in initial conditions can lead to large differences in outcome beyond the limited range of possible outcomes. So yes, those probabilities can produce large scale changes, but always be within a range of possible outcomes for every series of possible outcomes even though small change lead to 'wide 'range of outcomes,' but like in weather, small variations lead to a wide range of possible outcomes, but weather will always be weather. Chaos Theory adequately describes this variability over time.

Actually, chaos theory precisely shows that the specifics *cannot* be determined ahead of time. It is the nature of strange attractors that the specific path taken cannot be determined ahead of time because small errors in measurement lead to large errors later.

Your comment that the weather will always be the weather seems strange in context. Yes, it will. But those small initial changes may well mean the difference between a drought and a rainstorm.

I said if the initial conditions remain the same the outcomes will only fall into a range of outcomes constrained by Natural Laws, natural processes, materials available, and environment. IF the materials available and the environment changes than then the game changes.

And, in a situation involving chaos, that range of possible outcomes is often quite large. It is NOT narrowly constrained.

I go with Karl Popper who proposed that our physical nature is simply deterministic, but science is indeterministic, therefore science can only falsify theories and hypothesis and not prove anything, and no basic laws, theories and hypothesis we develop will always have a degree of a tentative nature they are not probabilistic.

But we *know* the universe is NOT strictly deterministic. It is NOT simply that our understanding isn't good enough. In fact, our understanding is good enough to know it is not deterministic, but is, in fact, probabilistic.

There are two separate issues here.

One, chaotic dynamics, happens in a deterministic system with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. because of this sensitive dependence, it is often useful and appropriate to use a probabilistic description using things like strange attractors.

The second, quantum indeterminacy, is NOT deterministic and adds an inherent probabilistic aspect to the universe, no matter what.

Now, there is a valid question whether the small scale quantum indeterminacy can feed into the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the classical large scale system. From a variety of studies, it can and does. When the quantum aspect is added, the quantum system both follows the classical for a while, but inevitably spreads out in a way that mimics the chaotic dynamics.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, the sensitive dependence on initial conditions is a known, measured, and valid aspect of many physical situations. It is NOT simply speculation.

This does not reflect what I said, more foolishness.

Actually, chaos theory precisely shows that the specifics *cannot* be determined ahead of time. It is the nature of strange attractors that the specific path taken cannot be determined ahead of time because small errors in measurement lead to large errors later.

Never claimed this and you are becoming foolish. Reread my posts carefully.

Your comment that the weather will always be the weather seems strange in context. Yes, it will. But those small initial changes may well mean the difference between a drought and a rainstorm.

Bold is false. First, you cannot compare drought and rainstorm (?).

And, in a situation involving chaos, that range of possible outcomes is often quite large. It is NOT narrowly constrained.

No, normally not 'quite large (?), if so science would be disfunctional and it isn't. It is not narrowly nor 'quite largely constrained.'

Chaos theory describes the predictable range and pattern of outcomes, and not whether it is 'quite large' nor narrowly constrained.

But we *know* the universe is NOT strictly deterministic. It is NOT simply that our understanding isn't good enough. In fact, our understanding is good enough to know it is not deterministic, but is, in fact, probabilistic.

Sorry Boops! We do not know anything. Disagre it is not probabilistic.

There are two separate issues here.

One, chaotic dynamics, happens in a deterministic system with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. because of this sensitive dependence, it is often useful and appropriate to use a probabilistic description using things like strange attractors.

The second, quantum indeterminacy, is NOT deterministic and adds an inherent probabilistic aspect to the universe, no matter what.

Now, there is a valid question whether the small scale quantum indeterminacy can feed into the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the classical large scale system. From a variety of studies, it can and does. When the quantum aspect is added, the quantum system both follows the classical for a while, but inevitably spreads out in a way that mimics the chaotic dynamics.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

This does not reflect what I said, more foolishness.

I refer to your post #103 where you said

I seriously disagree that small differences in initial conditions can lead to large differences in outcome beyond the limited range of possible outcomes.

The fact is that there are systems, even classical systems, where this is simply false: small initial differences lead quickly to large differences in outcome.

Never claimed this and you are becoming foolish. Reread my posts carefully.

For example, your post #101, where you said

If conditions are right rest assured the outcome is 100% it will happen. Actually 'probability does not even apply in by far most cause and effect outcomes in nature,

Again, you are ignoring the vast range of quantum phenomena where probability does apply.

If you only limit yourself to non-chaotic systems that are also classical, then you are correct. Those are the ones where slight variations in initial conditions don't affect the outcome greatly. But chaotic systems are all around us and the quantum nature of reality is not in question at this point.

Bold is false. First, you cannot compare drought and rainstorm (?).

Not what I said. I said that you cannot determine which will happen only knowing initial conditions.

No, normally not 'quite large (?), if so science would be disfunctional and it isn't. It is not narrowly nor 'quite largely constrained.'

Not every system is chaotic. But many are. In non-chaotic systems, small differences in initial conditions lead to small differences in outcome.

But in a chaotic system, that is no longer the case.

And there *are* chaotic systems. Not all of the deal with the weather. In fact, one of the earliest chaotic systems studied involved three linked pendulums.

Chaos theory describes the predictable range and pattern of outcomes, and not whether it is 'quite large' nor narrowly constrained.

Actually, it does that as well. But, again, it does not and cannot determine the specific development of any given chaotic system. it can give a general pattern

Sorry Boops! We do not know anything. Disagre it is not probabilistic.

How much QM have you studied? What do you know about Bell's inequalities and the Aspect experiment?

 

[shunyadragon]

I refer to your post #103 where you said


The fact is that there are systems, even classical systems, where this is simply false: small initial differences lead quickly to large differences in outcome.

IT depends on what you are referring to 'large differences,' you have failed to be clear.

Again, you are ignoring the vast range of quantum phenomena where probability does apply.

Yes probability does apply, but I consider the Quantum behavior in the Quantum World to be increasingly predictable and consistent as more information on the Quantum world increases.

If you only limit yourself to non-chaotic systems that are also classical, then you are correct. Those are the ones where slight variations in initial conditions don't affect the outcome greatly. But chaotic systems are all around us and the quantum nature of reality is not in question at this point.

Careful, the difference between chaotic and non-chaotic (?) is the number of variables. By far most of nature is chaotic with many variables and non-chaotic systems end linear math in Junior High School.

Not what I said. I said that you cannot determine which will happen only knowing initial conditions.

Science is based on far more knowledge than initial conditions.

Not every system is chaotic. But many are. In non-chaotic systems, small differences in initial conditions lead to small differences in outcome.

But in a chaotic system, that is no longer the case.

I consider non-chaotic (?) to be too simplistic to be real in nature, Chaotic systems are indeed more consistent over time and predictable, and the reason science can falsify theories and hypothesis of complex chaotic systems.

And there *are* chaotic systems. Not all of the deal with the weather.

Unnecessary sarcasm noted.

In fact, one of the earliest chaotic systems studied involved three linked pendulums.

Still too simplistic and Newtonian.

Actually, it does that as well. But, again, it does not and cannot determine the specific development of any given chaotic system. it can give a general pattern.

Your use of specific is misleading.

How much QM have you studied? What do you know about Bell's inequalities and the Aspect experiment?

Enough to know Bell's inequalities and Aspect experiment is a problem to be worked out in physics. Even though the present explanation is unknown

'Arguing from supposed ignorance' and the present limitations of human knowledge does not help your case.

Interesting note: Even the present unknowns in Quantum Mechanics are predictable and consistent.

 

[Polymath257]

Careful, the difference between chaotic and non-chaotic (?) is the number of variables. By far most of nature is chaotic with many variables and non-chaotic systems end linear math in Junior High School.

No, chaotic behavior is NOT simply a matter of the number of variables. There are systems that show chaotic behavior with just two variables. Once you get to three or more variables, chaotic dynamics is quite common.

Science is based on far more knowledge than initial conditions.

True. Initial conditions and the proposed laws. Those laws, however, are deduced from observations of simple systems.

I consider non-chaotic (?) to be too simplistic to be real in nature, Chaotic systems are indeed more consistent over time and predictable, and the reason science can falsify theories and hypothesis of complex chaotic systems.

Unnecessary sarcasm noted.

No sarcasm intended.

Still too simplistic and Newtonian.

Which was my point. Chaotic behavior can be seen in fully classical, Newtonian systems with as few as three linked pendulums. Do you need a reference?

Your use of specific is misleading.

I don't think so.

Enough to know Bell's inequalities and Aspect experiment is a problem to be worked out in physics. Even though the present explanation is unknown

Wrong. The explanation is quantum mechanics, which predicted both. it is a non-deterministic explanation, though.

'Arguing from supposed ignorance' and the present limitations of human knowledge does not help your case.

Interesting note: Even the present unknowns in Quantum Mechanics are predictable and consistent.

Depends on what you mean. For example, there is no way, even in theory, to predict when a radioactive nucleus will decay. We can know its decay energy. We can know the probability of decay in a given time interval. But we cannot know when it will decay.

Quantum mechanics predicts the probabilities, the decay energies, etc. But it does not *and cannot* predict the precise time of decay of a single nucleus. That is a purely probabilistic event.

The same is true of other quantum phenomena. It is impossible to predict, even in theory, where on a screen a photon in a double slit experiment will be detected. We can, and do, predict the probabilities of different locations and the pattern obtained when many photons are sent through the slits.

The failure of Bell's inequalities was predicted by QM. It is directly counter to classical physics and a 'hidden variable' explanation. it is NOT simply our ignorance at work here. We *have* the explanation in QM. It just isn't a deterministic explanation. it is probabilistic.