I can’t quite figure out what “informs” means in this context, but I LOVE the way this passage sounds. If it’s not poetry, it ain’t short by much.
-VM
It’s used in the older, literal sense of “gives form to”, but also the “infuse, permeate and imbue with effect” sense.
Apatheism?
This is worse than wrong – it’s a truism that doesn’t mean anything. It may be poetic, but it’s not science.
In actual scientific understanding, “random” has two distinct and completely different meanings, and you conveniently obfuscate them.
One meaning is mathematical and is a trivial statement about observations. This is the criterion we apply to pseudo-random number generators, for instance. We know for a fact that they aren’t truly random, but if they produce a series of numbers with an apparently random distribution, we’re satisfied that their output possesses the desired statistical property and is therefore useful for all kinds of purposes.
The other meaning is based on underlying physical mechanisms. Which also means that if we declare to our satisfaction that a particular physical process meets our criteria for randomness, then by definition we must accept whatever results it gives us, regardless of their statistical properties.
You are conflating the two. You appear to be talking about the first one – which is irrelevant to an understanding of the underlying physical mechanism – but it’s not actually clear which one you mean and whether you appreciate the fundamental distinction. You surely cannot mean that we have a full description of the quantum processes involved because we certainly do not, and some of theories we do have are mutually contradictory, as you never tire of pointing out. Moreover, any characterization of a classical physical process as being “random” reflects nothing more than a lack of sufficient information to formulate an actual, complete, physical theory. That, and not mysticism or magic, is the basis of stochastic models and chaos theory.
That’s not subject to debate, and the controversial and unresolved question is to what extent, if any, does this extend to quantum behavior. Nor is it true that we can never have such information about quantum behavior – we just can’t have complete information about any specific instance. The fact that quantum states are inherently unknowable is irrelevant to theories of quantum behavior. It doesn’t preclude the principles being investigated and established, and several leading theories predict those principles to be causally deterministic, which is likely to be borne out by further developments in quantum computing. The idea of quantum behavior being intrinsically random seems to be a common misconception promulgated by popular writing, and I freely admit that I once believed it myself. But there is no basis for it.
At this point I think we’re just talking past each other, so let me sum it up this way. It’s not good enough to throw up your hands and say QM is all mysterious and unknowable, completely random and non-deterministic and even downright nonsensical, and therefore claim that something like radioactive decay is evidence that “universal causality is a fiction”. Mapmakers in ancient times would routinely label unmapped, unknown areas with the caption “Here be Dragonnes”, which strikes me as the perfect metaphor for that kind of thinking. QM continues to reveal fantastic systematic behavior with real-world effects. Indeed even superdeterminism may be quite real, and Bell (in the paper I mentioned earlier) was mounting a philosophical argument simply suggesting that he doubted it was a reasonable explanation for entanglement, but that he was open to being convinced otherwise.
So again, your claim that universal causality is a “fiction” is without substance. It turned out that there were no Dragonnes, either, and to paraphrase an old expression, it’s not what you don’t know that causes trouble, it’s what you think you know for sure that just ain’t so.
(I haven’t read the thread in it’s entirety. I’m just doing a drive-by here.)
I’m an atheist. In response to the OP: I suppose it depends on how you define “knowledge” and “god.”
I don’t believe that leprechauns, fairies, and gnomes exist. I can’t ever be 100% certain, since one can’t prove a negative. But my unbelief is so strong that I would say it equates to “knowledge” of their lack of existence. My unbelief in God is of the same nature and degree.
To turn the question on its head: How can agnostics leave unanswered the question of the existence of a god? Doesn’t that mean they also have to acknowledge the possible existence of leprechauns, fairies, and gnomes? And if so, then the world becomes largely unknowable as a whole–who knows what supernatural entities lurk in your yard, your home, or in that abandoned house down the street?
Meantime, if you re-define a “god” as something remote and unknowable and say something like “God is the force ordering the universe,” that just turns the whole issue into nonsense. You might as well say that leprechauns are the force ordering the universe and tell me I have to believe in leprechauns now, since clearly something provides order to the universe. IOW, you’ve just redefined everything to the point of meaninglessness.
(I’m done. Carry on.)
Fortunately, the strength of a belief has no bearing whatsoever on its validity. If it did, the average Bible-thumping fundie would have you beat, hands down.
Because they don’t know the answer.
No.
I haven’t “re-defined” [sic] anything. I’m just sitting here watching you redefining like there’s no tomorrow, creating some ridiculous neologism around the word “leprechaun”, and wondering what you think you’re proving.
What can I say? Gods, prophets, devils, holy books, leprechauns, gnomes, fairies–it’s all the same silliness to me. So I don’t see why the rules of the game should differentiate between them.
I’d agree that no supernatural entities exist, in this sense: There are actual laws of physics, the known laws of physics being some subset or special case of these. And no entity can violate those actual laws of physics. In that sense, a supernatural God is utterly impossible.
However, a superhuman entity or spirit is quite possibly possible.
I suspect that if any such superhuman entity or spirit was discovered, atheists would say that since it isn’t really supernatural, it isn’t a God. If I’m right about that, the factual claims made by atheists are a tautology. This sort of reasoning leads me to think that agnosticism is a bit more valid of an option than atheism.
Now, I certainly can see someone saying that while they are agnostic over a Deistic sort of God, or a weak observer-only God, they are very sure that Zeus and Jesus aren’t Gods. Since I’m Jewish, I can’t have much problem with being sure about those Gods. However, to say that any possible God ever imagined, or not yet imagined, has virtually no chance of existence, seems to me extreme.
Why not? What specific discriminant are you using? How can an agnostic say, “I’m not sure whether or not Jehovah exists…but I’m certain that leprechauns do not exist?”
Where do the boundaries get drawn between, “That’s possible, but I don’t know for sure” and “I know for sure there’s no such thing?” Especially when discussing ideas for which there is no evidence for the proposition, and, almost by definition, no way to prove the proposition is false.
(“There are no elephants in my living room.” Easily proven. But leprechauns can open and close doors and windows silently, move about invisibly, cloud men’s minds, walk through walls via secret doors they put there long ago, etc. Very hard to disprove.)
So am I to understand that you think that uncertainty, as represented by agnosticism, is more valid than the certainty of a tautology?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that you recognize that atheism is valid as a tautology, many people don’t. On the other hand, it seems to me that agnosticism not only doesn’t recognize that, but that agnostics are on the fence about whether a truly “supernatural” being (as distinct from a merely super-human being) is possible.
(Note: I am jumping in here without having read the thread, so I apologize if I am covering old ground.)
As long as I’m covering old ground, here is how I understand these two terms at their most basic:
Atheist: I have evaluated all the claims and evidence for supernatural beings that I have found, and none of them are valid. Since, in addition, the concept of a supernatural being seems to me to be contradictory, absent any compelling evidence or claims for them, I am of the opinion that supernatural beings don’t exist. I am, however, open to being proved wrong, if possible.
Agnostic: I can see the arguments on both sides, both for and against supernatural beings, and I am not able to decide which is right, so I have no opinion.
This is why I find agnosticism untenable.
No, it isn’t. The clue there is that prefix “pseudo”.
And truly useless for all kinds of other applications, especially as computation has improved. We may use pseudo-random numbers, but we never confuse them with true randomness. At least, neither I nor any scientists I know do. You may differ. I understand, rigour isn’t a thing everywhere.
Cite for me, please, where the “underlying physical mechanisms” is involved in any definition of randomness. You’ll find plenty of discussion about it (hell, this thread is entry #5 in a Google search) but in no way is the idea of randomness dependent on the mechanism.
No, I’m not. I’ve stated very clearly I’m talking about particular inherently unpredictable physical processes, which is not statistics. Conflation is happening entirely in your head.
No I don’t think we have a full description, stop piling that straw. And it doesn’t matter that we don’t have a full theory - none of the existing theories I know of claim to predict radioactive decay.
Who said anything about any “classical” processes? I’ve been talking strictly quantum effects here.
Now who’s conflating? Only a scientific illiterate thinks true randomness and chaos theory are anything but tangentially related. I’ve discussed the former phenomenon as it pertains to discarding any need for God, stop trying to bring the latter, purely deterministic, theory in as though it were relevant in any way.
A distinction without difference when it’s precisely specific instances I’ve been talking about. So there, you acknowledge that we can’t (not don’t) know. What the hell is all the rest of this post about?
Bull. Shit. Or else Einstein wouldn’t have fought so hard to discard God’s dice and Schroedinger wouldn’t have had to torture thought-cats.
Strawman, who said “completely?”…
…even though the most widely accepted interpretation is…
…just some interpretations of it…
…except it is.
Aah, so you do want to throw Heisenberg under the bus, I was right. Look, some things are fundamentally unknowable. Deal with it.
True randomness exists, and all your verbiage doesn’t change that. You’ll have a point when someone come up with a reasonable model for predicting the timing of radioactive decay and QVF, not before.
It’s more what you think you can know, when you never can know. Like decay timings.
What do you mean by superhuman entity? If we went back to the time the Bible was written, we’d be superhuman to those people to all intents and purposes, using technology indistinguishable from magic.
A true God would have to be truly supernatural. I don’t think we can say that this is impossible, but we can say that we for sure have never seen any evidence at all of the supernatural, so the belief that it does not exist is perfectly reasonable.
We’re all agnostic about those gods since we can have no knowledge of them by definition. Atheists just don’t believe in them (there being no reason to do so) which is also reasonable.
I am making a distinction between the mathematical concept of a random distribution and the physical concept of a notionally random process. I understand comprehension isn’t a thing everywhere.
Every once in a while you make a statement that is so stunningly obtuse that it’s hard to know how to respond, and as an added bonus it’s usually accompanied by a gratuitous insult like an accusation of being “scientifically illiterate”. The above being a couple of fine examples.
Those engaged in applications requiring randomized inputs distinguish between pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs), whether randomly seeded (from some physical process) or not, and true random number generators (TRNGs) entirely based on physical processes. The concept of physical process based RNGs isn’t something I should need to give a cite for – it’s a commonplace*** fact***. There are public sites operating TRNGs where anyone can obtain physically derived random number sequences, typically from things like radioactive decay (like Hotbits), or atmospheric noise (random.org) and other physical chaotic systems – here is a paper describing methods of generating rapid random sequences from the power fluctuations of semiconductor lasers. Apparently the world is full of “scientific illiterates” cheerfully generating random number sequences from chaotic physical sources, a phenomenon for which you want me to provide a cite because, apparently, you don’t believe such a thing exists. 
The caveat is that I would describe them as “notionally random” – that is, they have a random distribution and are non-periodic and are either intrinsically or for all practical purposes unpredictable, but that says nothing about causation, and if derived from chaotic phenomena, they definitely do have causation. And the principle I described with which you inexplicably took issue holds exactly true: PRNGs are vetted based on their statistical performance, while TRNGs are vetted based on the underlying physical processes, and our willingness to accept that their unknown output can be considered random for the intended purposes.
Sure, according to the argumentative fallacy where you define the terms to suit your argument. No one disputes that radioactive decay exhibits behavior satisfying the requirements of randomness as we perceive it, and if I had to place bets I would highly doubt that we’d ever be able to predict when a particular atom will decay. But the argument here isn’t about that. It’s about potentially understanding the underlying causality, which at various points – in a wonderful exhibit of contradiction and inconsistency – you simultaneously agreed was and was not the same causality responsible for the element’s statistical half-life. It’s about the fact that – putting aside your own glaring inconsistency and dispensing with your spurious conceptualization of “random” and getting down to physics – it may well be that quantum processes left undisturbed can and do proceed as a series of causally proximate interactions that always result in the same deterministic outcome when initialized from the same state. The underlying assumption is that even if that state is unknowable to us, it’s nevertheless completely defined in physical reality. This is the essence of the Bohmian and related interpretations of QM.
A brief blurb from Wikipedia on the unresolved question of quantum determinism:
Some (including Albert Einstein) argue that our inability to predict any more than probabilities is simply due to ignorance. The idea is that, beyond the conditions and laws we can observe or deduce, there are also hidden factors or “hidden variables” that determine absolutely in which order photons reach the detector screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically determinative way. In actuality, they proceed in an absolutely deterministic way. These matters continue to be subject to some dispute.
… it is possible to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.
So in the argument against necessary causality as an argument against God, you’re left where you were originally: nowhere at all.
Basically the discriminant of putative effects that are trivially disproven. If leprechauns “can open and close doors and windows silently” then we should be able to observe these things occurring. All of those examples, like the belief in ghosts, seem to entail phenomena that are subject to fairly simple verification. For that matter, so do many elements of the traditional Gods of many religions, so I don’t believe in them, either.
But this is a far cry from atheism in the “strong atheist” sense. The difference is that one can conceive of a God who has no role in the order of the universe – who doesn’t listen to prayers, hold humans sacred, or work miracles – but who was the originator of it. This is not exactly the same as the argument from causality, it’s an analog to it. It’s a concept of God that is necessarily metaphysical and outside the realm of scientific evidence. Some would argue that such a concept is purely a philosophical construct that satisfies our need for completeness in a universe whose description will manifestly always be scientifically incomplete. I would agree. I consider that a virtue, not a fault.
If your definition of “strong atheist” is someone who claims to have knowledge that no gods exist, then I content there are few if any strong atheists in the world. I’ve known of one in 40 years of on-line discussion.
If you are using the correct definition of strong atheist, one who believes that there are no gods (as opposed to the simple lack of belief in any god) then I don’t see why believing that no such undetectable god exists is problematic.
If someone feels the need to have something that created the universe, it might be some grad student in a different brane.
And it’s grad students all the way down.
My impressions may well be colored by some of the crusading atheists that have been prominent in the media, and they are really annoying. The American Atheist Society claims (and I hope it’s true) that their main mission is basically to counter the dominance of organized religion in social institutions. To that extent I support their objectives, especially when it comes to schools.
It’s intriguing to think that the universe might be the result of some grad student’s thesis project. But with all those finely tuned physical constants, I doubt it. If your hypothetical grad student is anything like the grad students I’ve known, the universe would have collapsed back to non-existence in about 10[sup]-30[/sup] sec.
So, making a distinction between a thing only you brought up, and your strawman version (I saw how you slipped “notionally” in there ) of the concept I brought up. This is pertinent how, exactly?
I get that you understand it, but you don’t have to be so practical with showing me, too…
The ones using radioactive sources are using random sources. The others I don’t claim to know enough about. I assume they’re either properly random based on QM effects at heart, or random enough for the purposes they serve. That doesn’t render chaos non-deterministic. The rest of this screed is irrelevant.
Your reading comprehension is as good as your scientific literacy, if that’s what you think I asked for a cite for…
Yes, it is. Not the argument you want to have, clearly, but the one where you’ve already admitted you’d hedge your bets in favour of the random. So much for determinism…
Basically, your entire argument boils down to “there’s magic determinism behind the randomness” and like I said at the start, that’s just a silly argument.
Even Dawkins doesn’t profess knowledge that there are no gods. Now, we can rule put some, like the tri-omni god who is logically inconsistent. Since believers have ruled out any god but theirs, I can see why they might get confused and think that someone who rules out their god has ruled out all gods. But, as I’m sure you have noticed, believers don’t tend to understand atheism very well.
Ah, but those who do create workable universes get faculty positions. God is great, but the search committee is greater.
(The compiler I wrote for my dissertation was carefully designed to be just good enough to run enough programs to get my committee to sign off on my PhD, and not one bit better. I knew what my goal was. )
So agnosticism depends on diluting the definition of the entity in question so far as to be meaningless. But I can do exactly the same with the leprechauns. They’re invisible, and you can’t take photographs of them. They’re intangible, so you can’t put down fine baking flour to track their footprints. They’re canny, and always are exactly where you aren’t looking. They’re always right behind your back. There is no possible way to trap them, or obtain evidence of their presence.
So…now why would you refrain from agnosticism in their regard? Why do you make an exception for the exact same special pleading with regard to “God” but deny it for these invisible (pink) leprechauns?
You nailed it.
I would have used leprechaun, but maybe it’s a young and therefore small unicorn. 