Would it be correct to say that the presence of Probability within Quantum Mechanics and other areas of Physics, make PREDICTION impossible.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am having a bit of a problem at the moment , you's all quoting PREDICTION as the 'B' all and 'END' all, of the scientific test. This when I am trying to propose, in other threads, the invariable presence of GAPS, composed of ,PROBABILITY occurring over and over in the nature of things , and we ought to be looking at a different approach to arriving at solutions in these instants ( the genetic algorithm route for example) or the cosmos being a gigantic mold that everything is working its way into, rather than by strict predictable mathematical paths. We do seem to be getting a bit full with " uncertainty" " forbidden bands" " Exclusion Principle" " Schronigers Cat " " Spooky action at a distance " " non locality " " Dark this " and dark the other " "

Left Hand Side ( PREDICTABLE ) Center ( UNPREDICTABLE ) Right Hand Side ( Predictable )

When you have a few of these in series , it is like a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick.

It becomes a Total Non Predictable solution, only Statistical , If that. In some cases, perhaps with new future discoveries, it might be better, looking at the final mold and developing a different approach as to what gets into the various parts of the ' total cosmic mold.'

[studiot]

I recommend this Cambridge University book

 

On Space and Time

 

by Professor Majid.

[swansont]

Statistical results are still predictable. If result A is supposed to happen 10% of the time, B 30% and C 60%, that can be tested. If that's the result, then the model needs to predict those percentages, to within experimental error.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Statistical results are still predictable. If result A is supposed to happen 10% of the time, B 30% and C 60%, that can be tested. If that's the result, then the model needs to predict those percentages, to within experimental error.

 

What happens when :-

 

if its 1 in 2,000,000,000 for say three helium nuclei fusing to become a carbon nuclei inside a star ?

 

or for that matter , the probability of getting a gold nuclei , in a mega sun( 2o-200 times the sun mass ) supernova

 

 

Here is an example where proof by PROBABILITY would be more favorable than Proof by PREDICTION surely

 

 

 

A stick pushing a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick. ( high on probabilities low on predictions)

 

Could the universes workings be high on PROBABILITIES , low on PREDICTIONS in some areas of modern Physics.?

 

 

 

This is well illustrated in the following picture, where the center multi-choice section can be representative of the stick junction or for that matter a region in a star where 2,000,000,000 helium atoms exist in a highly agitated state.

 

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Using probability or statistics does not remove you from math, or being able to test the model by having it make predictions. The only caveat is that you need to have enough statistics to do a proper check. There are limits to testing non-deterministic systems, but that limit is not zero predictions.

 

"1 in 2,000,000,000 for say three helium nuclei fusing to become a carbon nuclei inside a star" can be checked, because there are many times Avogadro's number of helium nuclei, so that's actually trivial from this perspective. Pushing a series of sticks can be modeled as well. If you run enough trials, you can test the model.

[Ringer]

The trouble with probabilities such as the 1 in 2,000,000,000 is that the 2*10^9 only appears to be a large number without a reference to compare it to. Say I have a 2*10^9 sided die and I try to roll a specific number I won't get that number very often, if at all. But these things are singularly isolated events. To model the probability to reflect reality I have to say how many die are actually being rolled. If I'm rolling 2*10^18 die the probability I will get the number is pretty good.

[Klaynos]

You can also do ensemble modelling for chaotic systems with errors in the starting parameters. Again allowing predictions and testing from probabilistic systems.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Using probability or statistics does not remove you from math, or being able to test the model by having it make predictions. The only caveat is that you need to have enough statistics to do a proper check. There are limits to testing non-deterministic systems, but that limit is not zero predictions.

 

"1 in 2,000,000,000 for say three helium nuclei fusing to become a carbon nuclei inside a star" can be checked, because there are many times Avogadro's number of helium nuclei, so that's actually trivial from this perspective. Pushing a series of sticks can be modeled as well. If you run enough trials, you can test the model.

 

Ok . I see that . But one is going to have to do a lot of leg work to gather those statistics, so as to make the prediction so as to say " I have used the scientific method of prediction ". When surely its easier to say , " The universe is working in a way that is doing these experiments for me , in that star over there, and that other one over there, and the proportion of carbon they have generated is (so and so) , thus by observation of the 'mold' or 'goal' the thing is proved Now ( or soon ) . You will still be doing your statistical observations to gain the data to do, the sums in 20 years time.

 

The trouble with probabilities such as the 1 in 2,000,000,000 is that the 2*10^9 only appears to be a large number without a reference to compare it to. Say I have a 2*10^9 sided die and I try to roll a specific number I won't get that number very often, if at all. But these things are singularly isolated events. To model the probability to reflect reality I have to say how many die are actually being rolled. If I'm rolling 2*10^18 die the probability I will get the number is pretty good.

 

I am going to include here , the reply I gave to Mr Swansont in his post as I believe the answer to your point is the same. Save me typing it twice EXCEPT FOR THE RELEVANT INSERTS Number of Die, and sides . :-

 

Ok . I see that . But one is going to have to do a lot of leg work to gather those statistics, so as to make the prediction so as to say " I have used the scientific method of prediction ". When surely its easier to say , " The universe is working in a way that is doing these experiments for me , in that star over there, and that other one over there, and the proportion of carbon they have generated is (so and so) , thus by observation of the 'mold' or 'goal' the thing is proved Now ( or soon ) . You will still be doing your statistical observations ( by rolling 2*10^18 die each dice with 2*10^9 sides, to gain the data to do, the sums) in 20 years time.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SplitInfinity]

 

It is postulated that if one could know the position and condition of every existing Particle/Wave Form in our Universal Reality...then it would be possible to calculate the outcome of every following interaction, event and condition till the end of time...in this Universal Reality.

 

Now I think that would be true if our Universal Reality was a Closed System...but I am betting it is NOT.

 

Split Infinity

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You can also do ensemble modelling for chaotic systems with errors in the starting parameters. Again allowing predictions and testing from probabilistic systems.

 

Yes. Well this is sort of what I am getting at, New Modeling. I get the feeling that to make progress in future discovery of the cosmos, we might have to take a bit of a leap in the scientific method. I know this sounds like heracy. But by not necessarily slogging it out with 20 years of statistical analysis just to say " I used the Predictive method of Scientific Proof of theory, ". But to use natures own experiments that are already underway out there in the 'Big wide universe' , Make the observations of 'The Cosmic Molds' or 'Cosmic goals' and make conceptual conclusions. All this as new style stepping stones to an understanding of the Cosmos , rather than slogging it out, knee deep in statistical analysis and mind bending, headache inducing, pole axing, maths and data for 20 years . .

 

I know I have been supporting Wolfhart as a fellow scientist . Where he has his thesis on trying to re establish Einstein " God does not Play Dice"

 

May be " God Does Play Dice " and that is the nature of the cosmos ! And we need to understand the Game. ?

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

I don't see why you think we don't observe day star make up and use that as evidence?

 

As far as I'm aware that's been a big chunk of astrophysics research over the last century.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't see why you think we don't observe day star make up and use that as evidence?

 

As far as I'm aware that's been a big chunk of astrophysics research over the last century.

 

Yes I agree, I am sure we are and have been in astrophysics research. That is what I am saying " Use natures own experiments" perhaps that's the wrong word not necessarily "experiments" , more " methods ". " processes " ? Concentrate on producing new Concepts, models, paradymes ( I never get that .....word spelled right ) rather than slogging it out, knee deep in statistical analysis and mind bending, gut churning, headache inducing, pole axing, maths and data. However I suppose there has to be a place for it somewhere ! Just as long as I don't have to do it.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

The universe appears to run by probabilistic rules though. So to further the knowledge you need to do the maths to find the predictions and then look at the universe to see if they agree.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The universe appears to run by probabilistic rules though. So to further the knowledge you need to do the maths to find the predictions and then look at the universe to see if they agree.

 

No . you need to do the maths ,or some other poor sod . I need to spend my time gazing up at the Cosmos thinking nice thoughts. And trying to work out what the dickens is going on .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

It was a more general you than a specifically you you...

[swansont]

Mike Smith Cosmos, on 18 Apr 2013 - 03:26, said:

Ok . I see that . But one is going to have to do a lot of leg work to gather those statistics, so as to make the prediction so as to say " I have used the scientific method of prediction ". When surely its easier to say , " The universe is working in a way that is doing these experiments for me , in that star over there, and that other one over there, and the proportion of carbon they have generated is (so and so) , thus by observation of the 'mold' or 'goal' the thing is proved Now ( or soon ) . You will still be doing your statistical observations to gain the data to do, the sums in 20 years time.

Yeah, it's usually easier to do things half-assed, but the results won't be worth a damn. Doing cutting-edge experiments is hard — it takes work and dedication. There are experiments that require many years of data-taking. But it's what happens. Scientists do this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yeah, it's usually easier to do things half-assed, but the results won't be worth a damn. Doing cutting-edge experiments is hard — it takes work and dedication. There are experiments that require many years of data-taking. But it's what happens. Scientists do this.

 

Yes, but what happens if you do NOT need to ' kneel on dried peas' if you don't have to. What merit is there to' beat your backs with leather threads with metal in, and draw blood', if you don't have to.

 

Scientists thought you needed to send rockets to Mars to search for life, (million of pounds/ dollars). And James Lovelock , friend of Karl Sagan said " No you do not need to go any where near Mars to find out if there is life. LOOK AT THE ATMOSPHERE through an analytical telescope spectroscope, find the proportion of atmospheric gases and 'bob is your uncle' Life = balanced ecosystem; N0 life = unbalaced dominant one/two gases. As far as I know the latter is the way.

 

Just to do things the hard way does not make them the right way or the best way .

 

I am not at this juncture saying that the Probability based Observational Mold Method ( POMM) way ,is the way to go. I am saying , " its worth a look " in view of all the dedicated, hard work , that is involved in the current method, as you so rightly said.

 

No point in "kneeling on dried peas" for nothing. (Sounds very Lutheran, or was it Calvin )

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Ps . Something came out of CERN in a separate paper also posted last week, Steinhardt and Jen-Luc Lehners, an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany, argue that cyclic models remain viable, given the quoted error range in the Planck data⁵.

 

data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory : Nature News & Comment

 

It is postulated that if one could know the position and condition of every existing Particle/Wave Form in our Universal Reality...then it would be possible to calculate the outcome of every following interaction, event and condition till the end of time...in this Universal Reality.

 

Now I think that would be true if our Universal Reality was a Closed System...but I am betting it is NOT.

 

Split Infinity

 

I think most people including myself DO NOT think the Universe is a giant clockwork machine unwinding. Or at least I Think that is what most people think. If that is not too many thinks.! I think it would be a pretty boring place if that were to be the case.

 

Also it would snap like a carrot , if the machine got stuck on a bit of Granite or something. ( more like an immovable object) !

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[cladking]

Science has always been about prediction and nothing else. Ancient science was as founded on metaphysics and observation as is our own. Where it made predictions like a sabre toothed tiger is repelled by the ground fruit of a pepper plant one time than it and others like it will be repelled by the ground fruit of any pepper plant. This was an extremely valuable prediction that allowed people to live who otherwise would have perished and contributed to an increase population of tigers.

 

Science today is no different excepty te metaphysics isn't language and it is experimentally based rather than logically. Now we predict things like damming a river and putting generators in its path will provide cheap electricity to a large region and cause it and the people in it to flourish. We make predictions that lead to important experiments and new knowledge.

 

But it will forever be impossible to make the types of predictions that lead to real life choices or to see bits and pieces of the future. Every event is far too improbable to understand its antecedents. Every event in the here and now is always an impossibility because the probability is too low for it to actually happen. Yet here we are. How are we to make predictions about the future since as time spans increase the nature and number of causes grow exponentially? People believe we have tremendous knowledge so are easily swayed to believe almost anything even if it defies the laws of nature or the nature of man. Most of what we call "prediction" is the ability to manifest the laboratory in concrete or to observe theory in nature. Ground pepper might still keep sabre toothed tigers away but this doesn't mean we know anything about capsiacin or thermo nuclear reactions. As we learn more we are able to make more practical predictions about the how nature works but this doesn't mean that we'll be able to push a string or know the future.

 

The tiniest droplette of water "composing" a rainbow has water in it that was part of the apple that hit Newton. We can't predict the destination of the water molecule anymore than say where the rainbow goes when it sets. We don't even really know that every water molecule is identical.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Science has always been about prediction and nothing else. Ancient science was as founded on metaphysics and observation as is our own. Where it made predictions like a sabre toothed tiger is repelled by the ground fruit of a pepper plant one time than it and others like it will be repelled by the ground fruit of any pepper plant. This was an extremely valuable prediction that allowed people to live who otherwise would have perished and contributed to an increase population of tigers.

 

Science today is no different excepty te metaphysics isn't language and it is experimentally based rather than logically. Now we predict things like damming a river and putting generators in its path will provide cheap electricity to a large region and cause it and the people in it to flourish. We make predictions that lead to important experiments and new knowledge.

 

But it will forever be impossible to make the types of predictions that lead to real life choices or to see bits and pieces of the future. Every event is far too improbable to understand its antecedents. Every event in the here and now is always an impossibility because the probability is too low for it to actually happen. Yet here we are. How are we to make predictions about the future since as time spans increase the nature and number of causes grow exponentially? People believe we have tremendous knowledge so are easily swayed to believe almost anything even if it defies the laws of nature or the nature of man. Most of what we call "prediction" is the ability to manifest the laboratory in concrete or to observe theory in nature. Ground pepper might still keep sabre toothed tigers away but this doesn't mean we know anything about capsiacin or thermo nuclear reactions. As we learn more we are able to make more practical predictions about the how nature works but this doesn't mean that we'll be able to push a string or know the future.

 

The tiniest droplette of water "composing" a rainbow has water in it that was part of the apple that hit Newton. We can't predict the destination of the water molecule anymore than say where the rainbow goes when it sets. We don't even really know that every water molecule is identical.

 

Interesting comments. Need to sleep on it .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Interesting comments. Need to sleep on it .

Still thinking on it.

 

This is a bit of a profound JUNCTURE.

 

Is Science ALL ABOUT PREDICTION ? Humm !

 

I will have to watch my foot.

 

Make sure I do not shoot myself in the foot !

 

 

Edited April 21, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SplitInfinity]

Mike...as Chaos Theory and Fractal Pattern Theory have shown us...even the most complex system where cause and efect...action and interaction...and Quantum Indeterminant Values are the rules...A PATTERN WILL ALWAYS PRESENT ITSELF in even the most RANDOM of things.

 

Thus although it would seem impossible to determine the location and condition of every Particle/Wave Form in our Universal Reality at a specific moment...IF this was known...the Math tells us that every possible following event, action, interaction and cause and effect could be determined till the end of time.

 

There has NEVER been a case in the History of Man that the Math showed something to be a reality...and then it was proved not to be so.

 

Golden Rule...if the MATH say's it is so...it is so.

 

Split Infinity

[cladking]

Mike...as Chaos Theory and Fractal Pattern Theory have shown us...even the most complex system where cause and efect...action and interaction...and Quantum Indeterminant Values are the rules...A PATTERN WILL ALWAYS PRESENT ITSELF in even the most RANDOM of things.

 

Thus although it would seem impossible to determine the location and condition of every Particle/Wave Form in our Universal Reality at a specific moment...IF this was known...the Math tells us that every possible following event, action, interaction and cause and effect could be determined till the end of time.

 

There has NEVER been a case in the History of Man that the Math showed something to be a reality...and then it was proved not to be so.

 

Golden Rule...if the MATH say's it is so...it is so.

 

Split Infinity

 

You are presupposing that we know all of nature's laws. How can the knowledge of where everything is and it's velocity/ masss/ nature/ etc/ etc ad infinitum possibly help in prediction if we don't understand the simplest laws of nature like what gravity is? Such speculation is meaningless if there's such a thing as free will.

 

Math is meaningless unless it's properly applied. You can count the number of molecules in a mole but we simply don't know the exact number, the exact weight of each, or even if each molecule is identical down to their smallest fractions. You are simply stating a belief and it's a belief that doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. My belief is we will never know even a small percentage of the laws that govern how nature behaves. We will continually improve our understanding just as we have for half a millineum and be able to use this knowledge to build better mouse traps but we'll can't ever predict weather more than 7 days out unless we learn to control and schedule it. Left to nature's devices nothing is predictable and never will be.

[SplitInfinity]

You are presupposing that we know all of nature's laws. How can the knowledge of where everything is and it's velocity/ masss/ nature/ etc/ etc ad infinitum possibly help in prediction if we don't understand the simplest laws of nature like what gravity is? Such speculation is meaningless if there's such a thing as free will.

 

Math is meaningless unless it's properly applied. You can count the number of molecules in a mole but we simply don't know the exact number, the exact weight of each, or even if each molecule is identical down to their smallest fractions. You are simply stating a belief and it's a belief that doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. My belief is we will never know even a small percentage of the laws that govern how nature behaves. We will continually improve our understanding just as we have for half a millineum and be able to use this knowledge to build better mouse traps but we'll can't ever predict weather more than 7 days out unless we learn to control and schedule it. Left to nature's devices nothing is predictable and never will be.

I think you missed a bit of what I was trying to get across as my post previous to the one you have replied to is that knowing the position and condition of all Quanta in the Universe to know all future events and cause and effects would only be possible in a CLOSED UNIVERSAL SYSTEM.

 

If our Universal System was Closed...tis would be possible but as I stated at the end of that previous post...I think not...as I am fairly certain our Universal Reality is but one of an Infinite Number in one specific Universal Grouping that itself is but one grouping of an Infinite number of Universal Groupings within a Multiversal System.

 

A Universal Reality such as ours cannot be a Closed System if part of a Multiversal System as within our Universal Grouping Quantum Particle/Wave Form interconnectivity and transfer is at the very heart and responsible for Quantum Mechanics. As example...Photons and Electron two types of Quanta existing as both Particle and Wave. This Quantum behavior cannot be explain or exist in just a 4 Dimensional Space/Time Geometry and even if our Universal Dimensionality exists as a minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional State...this would still not account for such Quanta as Photons and Electrons having 2 or more functions as an isolated Electron has been shown to exist and function as both powering a micro-electric motor as well as grounding out thus existing as a dual function in a single Universal Reality.

 

Photons exhibit multi-functionality which is shown by the Dual Slit experiment...thus Quantum Mechanics can be explained in a Multiversal System where such Quanta have alternates existing in other Divergent Universal States as well as transfering and being interconnective between Alternate Divergent Universal States.

 

Split Infinity

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike...as Chaos Theory and Fractal Pattern Theory have shown us...even the most complex system where cause and efect...action and interaction...and Quantum Indeterminant Values are the rules...A PATTERN WILL ALWAYS PRESENT ITSELF in even the most RANDOM of things.

 

Thus although it would seem impossible to determine the location and condition of every Particle/Wave Form in our Universal Reality at a specific moment...IF this was known...the Math tells us that every possible following event, action, interaction and cause and effect could be determined till the end of time.

 

There has NEVER been a case in the History of Man that the Math showed something to be a reality...and then it was proved not to be so.

 

Golden Rule...if the MATH say's it is so...it is so.

 

Split Infinity

 

You are making some interesting comments split. I have said in another thread that I have come to the conclusion that because of an ample , equal , or excess number of probability mechanisms within the very structure of the universe that if Einstein said " God does not play Dice " I think I am going to have to beg to differ and say indeed " God does Play Dice. " The Universe is full of Probability links which give the Cosmos an amazing variety , beauty and randomness .

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SplitInfinity]

You are making some interesting comments split. I have said in another thread that I have come to the conclusion that because of an ample , equal , or excess number of probability mechanisms within the very structure of the universe that if Einstein said " God does not play Dice " I think I am going to have to beg to differ and say indeed " God does Play Dice. " The Universe is full of Probability links which give the Cosmos an amazing variety , beauty and randomness .

 

 

DSCF3121.JPG

 

Well...the way I believe it to be is...YES...our Universe certainly shows us Randomness and much diversity...but in a MULTIVERSE...all possibilities must exist thus every aspect of probability is covered.

 

It is like this with the insurance companies...given enough time...EVERYONES probability of dying reaches 100%. Kind of the same thing in a Multiverse...given an Infinite number of Universal States...probability reaches 100% that every possibility will exist.

 

Split Infinity