Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Perhaps I should have started with an easier question, is a deterministic system deterministic; although even that would probably receive a response of "No".You can but don't hold your breath waiting for his/her answer. Just like I won't hold my breath waiting for his/her answer to my question if everything is alive and conscious wouldn't whatever it was that created the universe also be alive and conscious too?
Just because we can't compute it doesn't mean it's random. Quantum mechanics still follows the conservation laws, right? Doesn't that make it deterministic?That is a rather ambiguous question that was covered before. The chaos that arises from some coupled differential equations is deterministic in principle but not computationally.
If you are referring to the cited abstract, I'm not familiar with much of the math references, but basically they are looking at probability distributions of a random process, which is not deterministic.
It's similar to a closed system of air. It's not possible to analyze it molecule by molecule, but a kinetic energy spectrum can be computed from state variables like pressure, temperature, given the volume.
careful...Just because we can't compute it doesn't mean it's random. Quantum mechanics still follows the conservation laws, right? Doesn't that make it deterministic?
How so? I'm a curious person. I like to tweak and tinker with things.careful...
OK, what I meant was that Wuwei (perhaps a practitioner of Qigong?) knows his stuff. He understands what chaos is, but perhaps doesn't yet grasp the mind games played by scruffy.How so? I'm a curious person. I like to tweak and tinker with things.
Had to look that up.OK, what I meant was that Wuwei (perhaps a practitioner of Qigong?) knows his stuff. He understands what chaos is, but perhaps doesn't yet grasp the mind games played by scruffy.
So far as I'm concerned chaos is a term to describe deterministic systems which can get into states such that we cannot compute their future. That's pretty much it unless your name is scruffy.
"Qigong" - this was taught by my former Wing Chun teacher when I lived in London:Had to look that up.
Yes, I'm born and raised in Liverpool, my mother sang with the Beatles and I spent several years hanging out with their former manager Alan Williams, very fond memories, Lennon's death was a huge blow to many people.Probably the best male voice ever.
This is why I've been suggesting that a model based on symmetries and constraints is more useful than one that tries to pin down constants.While it is true that physics faces challenges at extreme scales such as the Planck scale, this does not represent a fundamental problem. Rather, it highlights the limitations of our current understanding and tools to probe and describe phenomena at such scales.
The Planck scale represents the smallest length scale and highest energy scale at which conventional theories of physics break down and quantum effects become significant. This presents a challenge in unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, known as the theory of quantum gravity.
However, physicists are actively researching and developing new frameworks such as string theory and loop quantum gravity to address these challenges at the Planck scale. These approaches aim to provide a more complete and consistent description of the universe at all scales, including the Planck scale.
Therefore, while the Planck scale poses intriguing questions and requires further exploration, it does not signify a fundamental problem in physics. Instead, it serves as a frontier for advancing our understanding of nature and the underlying principles governing the universe.
View attachment 1010619
At the Planck scale, which is approximately 10^-35 meters, classical physics breaks down because gravitational forces become comparable to quantum effects. This leads to the need for a theory of quantum gravity to accurately describe the behavior of matter and energy at such small scales.
On the other hand, above the Planck scale, quantum mechanics is not applicable because the energy levels become so high that the effects of gravity dominate and the traditional principles of quantum mechanics no longer hold true. This is why there is a need for a theory that can unify quantum mechanics and general relativity to understand the behavior of the universe at both extremely small and extremely large scales.
Constants are used in science as simplified representations of complex phenomena to make calculations and predictions more manageable. While the universe may not be at a perfect equilibrium, constants help us understand and describe the natural world with a high degree of accuracy.
Even with the universe's dynamic and evolving nature, constants provide a foundation for scientific understanding and allow for meaningful comparisons and measurements.
It's important to acknowledge that constants are not meant to imply that the universe is static or unchanging but rather serve as tools to help us comprehend the underlying principles governing the universe.
By using constants, scientists can develop theories, conduct experiments, and make sense of the vast complexities of the cosmos. While the universe may be in a state of flux, constants remain valuable and reliable within the scope of our current understanding of the natural world.
Neutrinos are fundamental particles that play a crucial role in our understanding of the universe, but they are not the key to unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity.
The unification of these two fundamental theories is a major goal in theoretical physics, and while neutrinos have provided valuable insights into the nature of matter and energy, they are not the sole solution to this long-standing challenge. Some physicists believe that a unified theory, often referred to as a theory of everything, may involve concepts beyond neutrinos, such as supersymmetry or extra dimensions.
Neutrinos are important for studying the fundamental forces and particles in the universe, but the quest for unification remains a complex and ongoing endeavor that likely involves a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of space, time, and matter.
==>A group of blind men come across an elephant for the first time and each touch a different part of the elephant's body. One man touches the elephant's tail and thinks it's a rope, another touches its leg and thinks it's a tree trunk, another touches its side and thinks it's a wall, and so on. They all argue about what the elephant is like based on their limited perspective, not realizing that they are each experiencing just one part of the whole truth. The moral of the story is that individuals may have different perspectives based on their limited experiences, and it is important to consider multiple viewpoints to understand the full picture.
View attachment 1010620
Source :
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm interested in "topological order", which is one of the places where randomness meets determinism. My main interest is in brain states related to criticality, but all of it has analogs in physics.That is a rather ambiguous question that was covered before. The chaos that arises from some coupled differential equations is deterministic in principle but not computationally.
If you are referring to the cited abstract, I'm not familiar with much of the math references, but basically they are looking at probability distributions of a random process, which is not deterministic.
It's similar to a closed system of air. It's not possible to analyze it molecule by molecule, but a kinetic energy spectrum can be computed from state variables like pressure, temperature, given the volume.
).
I think you are hung up on a label, you have beat this poor horse to death.So far as I'm concerned chaos is a term to describe deterministic systems which can get into states such that we cannot compute their future.
Is he still being a pest?I think you are hung up on a label, you have beat this poor horse to death.
Perhaps I should have started with an easier question, is a deterministic system deterministic; although even that would probably receive a response of "No".
Perhaps this: Is a dead person dead or alive? From what I gathered the answer to that would have to be "alive".
You are not aware of the context of my remark, here is what transpired some weeks ago, my position will make more sense once you see what was being said - see this postI think you are hung up on a label, you have beat this poor horse to death.
Just because a system is deterministic does not mean it's predictable. Chaotic systems are only predictable within boundary conditions. They don't "get into that state" They are in that state by definition.
A hurricane is a chaotic system. Hurricanes cause a lot of damage, and we spend a lot of money trying to predict them. We monitor them with satellites and aircraft and balloons, etc. We gather huge amounts of data and use supercomputers to model their paths.
When you look at the predictions, they are pretty good in the immediate future, but the predicted path is a fan shape, the uncertainty grows rapidly with time. That is the nature of chaotic systems (which is pretty much everything in nature).
Hurricanes are "deterministic", sure. Air obeys rules. Hot air always rises, air always flows from high pressure to low pressure, etc. But that does not mean hurricanes are predictable- we can never gather enough data or model it precisely enough to make anything other than a short-term prediction (that rapidly degrades).
