Programming is a _Hard_, hard science.

hetware wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:


Jeff?Relf wrote:

Hi Bob_Schmall, You asked me what my qualifications are...



There is no true randomness,
pseudorandomness is always the result of an unmeasured causality.


...and has absolutely nothing to do with physics. I also teach
astronomy, so between that and history I can flip to either hard or soft
science.
If you say there is no true randomness, prove it using hard science--and
not games for bankers.


How does one go about proving axioms? I posit it as an axiom that Nature is
inherently causal. Please provide a single experimental result that
contradicts that assumption.


You can't prove a negative, but I agree you with you about causality in
science, BTW. The experiment at CERN reveals an effect that takes place
at superluminal speed. The effect agrees with Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle, but the cause is not yet known.

My disagreement with the OP is over his notion that humans do not have
free will. Apparently we are all zombies, which is demonstrably untrue
if you observe Robin Williams.

Bob Schmall wrote:

hetware wrote:

How does one go about proving axioms? I posit it as an axiom that Nature
is
inherently causal. Please provide a single experimental result that
contradicts that assumption.


You can't prove a negative,

It is possible to prove that a particular set of (poorly chosen) axioms
leads to a contradiction. My point in requesting some experimental result
that contradicts my axiom was to challenge those who believe that QM
somehow "proves" the Universe is inherently a-causal. There is certainly
more merit to pathological positivism than mere sophistry[*]. There's
something inherent and sublime in Nature that leads 'multiverse of possible
realities' to produce an equivalent phenomenological model to that arrived
at through the axiom of causality. Indeed, the statistical positivist
model has proven to be more fruitful in producing repeatable experimental
results than has the purely geometrodynamic approach at the submicroscopic
level.

but I agree you with you about causality in
science, BTW. The experiment at CERN reveals an effect that takes place
at superluminal speed. The effect agrees with Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle, but the cause is not yet known.

Reports of such findings always appear suspect to me. At the risk of
frustrating myself - and, perhaps others - may I ask for further
information on this, please?

My disagreement with the OP is over his notion that humans do not have
free will.

My informed hypothesis is this: There is a part of the human brain where
neurons form an interconnected continuum of cytoplasm. That is to say,
it's like one big cell made by connecting many cells together through
nerve-"endings" which form tubes between the cells. In this structure,
impulses travel at speeds on the order of light, as opposed to typical
neural transmissions which travel at a speed close to that of sound in air.

I believe the consciousness is likely some kind of "standing waveform"
structure housed in that complex. The medium of this standing waveform is
the continuum. I.e., it is not like a fluid or solid, constructed of
molecules. As such, it has infinitely many degrees of freedom.

A contemporary computer chip has a fixed number of possible digital states,
it can therefore, be modeled as an FSA (finite state automaton). The
consciousness, OTOH, is an ISA (infinite state automaton). From one
perspective, it is completely deterministic, from another it is completely
a-causal. Freewill and determinism are the same thing.

Apparently we are all zombies, which is demonstrably untrue
if you observe Robin Williams.

Don't confuse freewill with insanity!
--
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
http://www.germarrudolf.com/
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsrelea...115chicago.htm

Hi Bob_Schmall and Hetware,

The lack of true free-will does not imply we are zombies.
The sun has no free-will, yet it's no zombie.

As Einstein put it:

I do not believe in freedom of the will.
Schopenhauer's words:
“ Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills �
accompany me in all situations throughout my life
and reconcile me with the actions of others
even if they are rather painful to me.

This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me from
taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as
acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper.
__ EinsteinAndReligion.COM/credo.html

Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Bob_Schmall and Hetware,


The lack of true free-will does not imply we are zombies.

The sun has no free-will, yet it's no zombie.

You could even say it's quite bright. Good point.

Want some chips?

p

"Jeff.Relf" wrote in message
...
Hi Bob_Schmall and Hetware,

The lack of true free-will does not imply we are zombies.
The sun has no free-will, yet it's no zombie.

Why do you feel the need to add the word "true" to your blathering about the
lack of free will?

People either have free will or they don't. Free will does not mean we can
choose not to fall when we jump off a mountain, but that we can choose what
actions we will take. Nothing you have ever posted has shown anything to the
contrary, no matter how much you try to quote your own gibbering on
wikipedia.

Hi T_Wake, There is no true free-will just as there is no true randomness.
All randomness is pseudo-random.
And I'm mostly quoting Einstein on WikiPedia, not myself.

In fact, some people want to remove what I wrote there
because they thinks it's just a bunch of bons mots.
There's an interesting battle going on there, and I can't predict the outcome.

I've written emails to Larry Sanger before, he's a real nice guy, see:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Larry_Sanger
Sanger is the guy who coined the term WikiPedia
when he was on the team building it.
He had no idea it would ever become so popular.

Except for the fight for the mass-media soap-box,
WikiPedia is a lot like Usenet.
UrbanDictionary.COM is another great site... and it's _Funny_ too !

Sanger wants to introduce professional moderators... a big mistake.
I'm hoping level heads will prevail and my contribution remains for awhile.

Jeff...Relf wrote:


[snip]

WikiPedia is a lot like Usenet.

Which explains perfectly why you are stupid on Wikipedia as well as
USENET.

ATTENTION RELF: Nobody gives a ****. Why can't you just start a blog
and leave sci.physics alone?

[snip]

Jeff...Relf wrote:
There is no true free-will just as there is no true randomness.
All randomness is pseudo-random.

So find the pattern -


nite9uNBI84EH8ioI($#%t84h(#93r453j9r9(#R9839ruJH37 )9#RUghmer09uiJ94J094j
PO9840ut4zxjreo9urgjk945

Hint - there isn't one.

p

"Jeff.Relf" wrote in message
...
Hi T_Wake, There is no true free-will just as there is no true
randomness.

Stop repeating yourself. Read my posts and respond to what I write not what
the voices in your head tell you I wrot.

All randomness is pseudo-random.

Gibberish. Not to mention "unscientific."

And I'm mostly quoting Einstein on WikiPedia, not myself.

Einstein has been wrong before.

In fact, some people want to remove what I wrote there
because they thinks it's just a bunch of bons mots.

Really? Who would have thought that. I just think it is crap.

There's an interesting battle going on there, and I can't predict the
outcome.

I can.

I've written emails to Larry Sanger before, he's a real nice guy, see:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Larry_Sanger
Sanger is the guy who coined the term WikiPedia
when he was on the team building it.
He had no idea it would ever become so popular.

Except for the fight for the mass-media soap-box,
WikiPedia is a lot like Usenet.
UrbanDictionary.COM is another great site... and it's _Funny_ too !

Sanger wants to introduce professional moderators... a big mistake.

That would be good. I may apply for a post there.

I'm hoping level heads will prevail and my contribution remains for
awhile.

Yeah - although it belongs in the "desperately confused" section.

platopes wrote:
Jeff...Relf wrote:
There is no true free-will just as there is no true randomness.
All randomness is pseudo-random.

So find the pattern -


nite9uNBI84EH8ioI($#%t84h(#93r453j9r9(#R9839ruJH37 )9#RUghmer09uiJ94J094j
PO9840ut4zxjreo9urgjk945

Hint - there isn't one.

p


Any finite sequence of symbols has a pattern, by definition.