17 Jun 17
6 edits
Originally posted by apathistnonclassical;
Since the world is not classical, what set of rules are we using?
.
Classical is;
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/classical-physics
"..Classical physics
Physics that does not make use of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity.
..."
-and classic physics in this modern age means just Newtonian physics. But Newtonian physics fails to predict accurately for the vary small and the very fast.
Nonclassical physics is physics that consists of quantum physics and relativity. The physical laws and equations of quantum physics and relativity give the new set of rules we are using because those rules DO predict accurately for the vary small and the very fast.
The above is common knowledge.
17 Jun 17
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistmodern physics doesn't say one what or the other whether a quantum outcome being exactly what it is rather than some other possible outcome can be truly 'uncaused'. Whether something can be truly 'uncaused' or never so is currently just pure speculation thus not based on scientific method thus not based on any science.
and no events are 'uncaused'.
17 Jun 17
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistclearly false. Why cannot scientific method and therefore science deal with quantum physics probabilities? (like it validly already has else your computer wouldn't work) + What is stopping science dealing with those events that DO have a known cause? Nobody is claiming ALL events are causeless!
If events can be uncaused, then science has no business.
17 Jun 17
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistclearly false; a hypothetical causeless event can nevertheless have a probability. Science can and often does deal with probability. Haven't you ever heard of the science of statistics? or the science of applied quantum mechanics?
It can. It cannot deal with uncaused events.
17 Jun 17
5 edits
Originally posted by apathistwhat is so 'confusing' about a particular outcome, whether it is causeless or has a hidden cause, having a probability?
wtf? You are very confused.
You do know what is a "probability", right? If not, throw a dice a few times and try and predict the outcome to clear up that confusion of yours.
17 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI'm not about probability, right, and you are super sharp.
what is so 'confusing' about a particular outcome, whether it is causeless or has a hidden cause, having a probability?
You do know what is a "probability", right? If not, throw a dice a few times and try and predict the outcome to clear up that confusion of yours.
What I said, stands. I give you a helping hand up.
18 Jun 17
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistyour claim was;
I'm not talking about probability, (your bad grammar corrected)
"If events can be uncaused, then science has no business. ... It cannot deal with uncaused events." (from two different posts about the same thing)
But I then explain 'uncaused',events can nevertheless have PROBABILITIES and science CAN deal with probabilities therefore science CAN deal with any hypothetically 'uncaused',events.
Both quantum physics and the science of statistics are examples of sciences that deal with probabilities thus proving that, REGARDLESS of whether some events are caused or causeless, science CAN and DOES deal with such events.
So you may want to avoid talking about probabilities but, sorry! probabilities is what it is all about!
In particular, quantum physics not only deals with events with probabilities but doesn't assume any known cause to some of those events but deals with them nevertheless; proof it doesn't matter if they are causeless, science would deal with them anyway providing they have probabilities.
18 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyCan you hear yourself?
clearly false. Why cannot scientific method and therefore science deal with quantum physics probabilities? (like it validly already has else your computer wouldn't work) + What is stopping science dealing with those events that DO have a known cause? Nobody is claiming ALL events are causeless!