OT: An Existential Dilemma

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tris:
As far as existential questions go, I think perhaps you can use probability. Here goes:

Heck, there's no way I'm arguing with this.
You win

---

Heh.

On the more serious note take the existential question related to the existance of atoms of quickly decaying radioactive element inside of the well isolated box where it was placed in any particular moment.

The nuclear physicist, given all appropriate data, can calculate the exact probabilities to this existantial question.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by guybrush threepwood:
Actually, taken to the limit this deterministic picture of the rolling dice is not really true either due to the ways of quantum mechanics. Of course, quantum mechanics and existentialistic discussions is a whole other can of worms...

Totally. It undid the big bang, AND all the arguments used to "debunk" just about anything religious or supernatural. FUN fun fun.

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

The nuclear physicist, given all appropriate data, can calculate the exact probabilities to this existantial question.

Only on a certain level. As someone who has gotten into heated debates about existance and atomical decay in stimulus free enviroments I can tell you there is still quite a bit of debate. It's not pretty with protractors and calculators flying wildly as pocket protectors and Ivy League educations are literally heaved at one another with utter distain and deadly intent

[guybrush threepwood]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by guybrush threepwood:
Actually, taken to the limit this deterministic picture of the rolling dice is not really true either due to the ways of quantum mechanics. Of course, quantum mechanics and existentialistic discussions is a whole other can of worms...

Totally. It undid the big bang, AND all the arguments used to "debunk" just about anything religious or supernatural. FUN fun fun.

---

Not sure exactly what you mean. But I think the main arguments (to me at least) against religious/supernatural stuff is that there is not really any convincing reason FOR them, in the sense that less far-fetched explanations usually presents them self (to be brief).

(also, there is nothing inherent in the principles of science about determinism...)

[Varadail]

I feel pretty wierd after writing a three pages long monologue ...

[ May 25, 2004, 17:08: Message edited by: Varadail ]

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by guybrush threepwood:
Not sure exactly what you mean. But I think the main arguments (to me at least) against religious/supernatural stuff is that there is not really any convincing reason FOR them, in the sense that less far-fetched explanations usually presents them self (to be brief).

Well often the scientific invistigation rested with "matter and energy cannot be created, only converted" so it looked for the source or result. Their new "creation of the universe" theory bloew that out. And Quantum now puts as 4 in 11 dimensions. As we are to the 3d creatures, much less the 2d and 1d.. could reflect on our ability to understand 5,6,7,8,9,10 (11 is a special case). The whole thing makes your head hurt but it will be interesting to see where it goes and what things will shift from "bunk" into scientific.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

The nuclear physicist, given all appropriate data, can calculate the exact probabilities to this existantial question.

Only on a certain level.

---

That is correct. Quantum phisic is not nearly as neat as phisicists would like it to be. Can drive person crazy.

Still it illustrates that the question of existance or not existance of physical objects can be scientifically approached, with certain degree of success, in pure probability field, which was the point of my example.