ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

You must have gone to bed

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 1:43 am

I posted this after your last post.

"Well, :), when you say modified premisses then whatever the becomes after those premisses are changed is what that object will be. I mean when you change something it’s not the same as it was before. So yes, probability has a role in science but what do we mean by probability when we we’re talking about that probability? I mean scientific probability isn’t the same as Pascal’s probability, because it has different premisses that maintain different viewpoints. I don’t mean to ruin your mood but I had to tell you."

I’ll just say that in the macrophysical world the outcome to possible outcome ratio is 1:1, and in the microphysical, as far as I know, it’s unknown. I think we agree on that.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 3:33 am

Master_Q, eventhough scientists use probability I don’t think they use it in quantum mechanics. I think they only use statistics in quantum physics. Am I wrong?

I learned a few things about what proving something is about. It’s not a discussion. It’s only directed one way. Anyhow, getting back to the subject. Probability under Pascal’s premisses is disproved by the fact that it doesn’t have any natural facts as variables in its calcution because, this agreed between us and doesn’t need a proof, calculation used to predict natural phenomena must include natural phenomena as factors.

So even if nature was in accordance with probability’s results, by coincidence, probability would still be disproven because it it’s not a tool for calculating natural effects.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 5:09 am

Here’s how scientific probability works. It says from a limited set of variables out of a complete set of variables (presently detectable variables out of a whole set of variables including unknown variables.) how often will the same outcomes determinably occur given that they have occurred in a certain number in the past. This is the method they use to predict the weather. The reasoning behind this kind of of probability is totally different than that of game theory which is the same as pascal’s reasoning of probability. Now the difference has been stated. And to reiterate, probability under those premises, game theory - Pascal, can’t make any sort of prediction of nature because it has no physical variables in it’s formula to calculate those outcomes. And I’m not sure but I don’t think they use probability in quantum mechanics. I believe they only use statistics to calculate the percentage of time a certain event occurs. For instance, this particle exists in this area this percentage of the time, whatever..

So not only is probability as defined in game theory not used in science it is unapplicable to science on any level. Like I said before I don’t believe in probability.

This whole discussion just because I said I don’t believe in probability.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 5:31 am

"It says from a limited set of variables out of a complete set of variables (presently detectable variables out of a whole set of variables including unknown variables.) how often will the same outcomes determinably occur given that they have occurred in a certain number in the past."


The reasoning in scientific probability, probability as it’s defined in science, is a particular outcome of a set of limited variables of an event will be produced in a given ratio that’s occurred in the past. Yeah, that’s it. This method is a very very VERY weak scientific method, but still useful to a certain degree.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 10:52 pm

I thought the debate was over?

Probability if its in science or everyday life is really the same thing. In science or some experiment there is just more variables making it in some cases more accurate. So unless you changed the definition its still the same thing in general.

Statistics?
Yes you are wrong they do use probability.
Before we could say here is the ratio (which is probability by definition) in quantum mechanics we did have to look at what happens in different cases. Like I said it is not possible to determine the exact location so when you look at the statistics the conflict with each other. As a result of that it goes to probability we cannot just look at statistics and say this will happen. The experiment that we have talked about proves this we cannot say that this particle will make it and this will not. As you can see statistics would not work in defining the results of each particle so it does fall under the hands of probability. A ratio in it self proves that it is probability.

The game theory?
I don’t think that you really know what it is because its not just defined by grade-school probability it is much more then that. On how you are saying what "scientific probability" is you are really defining some of the meaning of the game theory. It is not just regular rations. It uses deductive reason & Boolean Algebra. Like I have been saying you are filling in the missing pieces and just saying that particular theories say different things. You have just filled in the blank of which the paper has said the meaning of the game theory which you did not understand.

"Scientific Probability"?
If you want to call it that then it just has more variables in it and its just plugged into "regular probability" it’s the same thing really. Its like how do you find the interception of 2 lineary lines (y=mx+b)? [y=mx+b]1 [y=mx+b]2 plug what x equals from 2 into 1 plug what that equals to into 2 to find intercept. You are just doing the same thing really.

Experiment?
This does prove probability exists in the world and to the quantum level.

Point A - Point B
So we send a signal from A to B, but we have a block. So of the partials dont go throw, but they have the same variables interacting with it and the same cause and then some go thorough going faster then light.

Each particle goes thorough what probability says with the same variables.

Its like in a pollabera (sp?) graph if it does cross the x axis then it has two points using the quadratic equation or by factoring it we get two results +/-. We can view that, but I know what you are going to say +/- it may be the same here, but it is not it goes thorough probability so in a way it is and in a way it is not related to this simple example.


Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 11:19 pm

" I thought the debate was over?"

That’s true, you thought it was over. I posted a reply after your last message last night saying that you got the wrong impression.

"Probability if its in science or everyday life is really the same thing. In science or some experiment there is just more variables making it in some cases more accurate. So unless you changed the definition its still the same thing in general."

That is what I’m saying. I’m saying they’ve changed the definition of in in science but just use the same name. They use a different method and that means it’s not the same thing.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 11:30 pm

I asked you "So can we put this to rest?" you said "ok" in your topic for your re. I did not get the wrong idea of what you are saying, believe it or not.

If you agree with that statement then you agree that probability exists because I said there that they are the same thing just with more variables. People look at y=mx+b, but they don’t realize that it says more - it’s the same idea. I can cheat by looking at my TI-86 or just plug the x for x , y for y to see where a point will be on a line.

If you want to use the game theory for your defense then learn what it really is and like I said quantum mechanics does use probability. This is a fact that it uses probability look at the math.

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 11:33 pm

"If you agree with that statement then you agree that probability exists because I said there that they are the same thing just with more variables."

I don’t agree with this. Adding more variables.. It’s not like that. It’s not a case of adding numbers. It’s like chemsitry, when you add you change, and in logic it’s if something has different qualities than another thing then it’s not the same even if they have common qualities.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 11:42 pm

Its on the same theory if I put y=mx+b in standard form its Ax+By=C is that not correct? If I want to be more "scientific" (math is a pure science) to find where x=4 where would y be from a certain equation just plug it in. It’s the same idea and reasoning because we are applying more then 1 variable into the same equation and idea it’s the same with probability we are just throwing in more variables, but they all fit back into the standard math.


Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 11:46 pm

"It’s the same idea and reasoning because we are applying more then 1 variable into the same equation and idea it’s the same with probability we are just throwing in more variables, but they all fit back into the standard math."

Yes, math is a science. It’s actually a natural science, because quantity is a natural phenomena, but math being a science is besides the point. The question is does it use physical variables to predict physical events. My premiss is physical events can only be calculated by physical variables.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 26 2002, 11:53 pm

It is true that when you roll dice they usually come out to 7. Is this not true? I have showed you the results of rolling the dice 6,000 times us software its comes close.

If you want to get into words about math its really a pure science not a natural a natural is one that you take in 8th grade. But its not the point like you said, but it is in many ways. Math is the heart of the debate of its core. You are arguing words not proofs. Rolling the dice we know the physical causes and we cannot say what will happen because of the unknown variables and my experiment proves your point wrong also, unless you can show other variables.

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 27 2002, 12:06 am

"It is true that when you roll dice they usually come out to 7. Is this not true?"

It probably is, but like I said before even if the actual results corresponded to Pascal’s definition of probability that still wouldnt’ prove it true unless it was determinable that those results were truly calculated by his hypothesis, or method of calculation, and that can only be true if the calculation used physical variables.

"If you want to get into words about math its really a pure science not a natural a natural is one that you take in 8th grade."

Well you brought it up, and still it’s besides the point.

"You are arguing words not proofs. Rolling the dice we know the physical causes and we cannot say what will happen because of the unknown variables and my experiment proves your point wrong also, unless you can show other variables."

I am using scientific principles as my proofs.

"Rolling the dice we know the physical causes and we cannot say what will happen because of the unknown variables"

This doesn’t make sense because if you knew the physical causes that is the same as knowing all the variables of that event but you say we know the causes but we don’t know all the variables. Your experiment doesn’t disprove it because it doesn’t show that it truly calculated the event even if the results corresponded to it’s prediction. How it’s prediction was calculated is the point here.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 27 2002, 12:16 am

Show me all of the variables of the "physical cause" of rolling dice. Also show me how you could apply that into the math. You cannot play a game and know what the variables are equal to. It is not possible to say what will happen in any event 100% the experment proves that. Them math? I recomend that you buy a book I found in the store (i don’t know the name), but in all Barns & Nobles they have a book on qunantum mechaincs. It has math in and out. If you canunderstand it then there is no way that you can think what you are thinking. The only warning I have is when I 1st picked it up I could not stop because the math is just so fun to do, or bad if you don’t know your advance math.

Master Q

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 27 2002, 12:19 am

"Show me all of the variables of the "physical cause" of rolling dice. Also show me how you could apply that into the math."

Yes, but now you just switched to asking me prove my proof again, instead of finishing the demonstration of your own. ;)

"It is not possible to say what will happen in any event 100% the experment proves that."

Yes, but only in situations when all the variables aren’t known.

" recomend that you buy a book I found in the store (i don’t know the name), but in all Barns & Nobles they have a book on qunantum mechaincs. It has math in and out. If you canunderstand it then there is no way that you can think what you are thinking. The only warning I have is when I 1st picked it up I could not stop because the math is just so fun to do, or bad if you don’t know your advance math."

I do understand it. You haven’t proven that I don’t. I wouldn’t spend money on buying a book of false ideas.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 27 2002, 12:25 am

Now you are saying quantum mechanics is wrong, but if you really understood it then you would not be debating at all. If you want to prove your point show me the variables of the cause of rolling dice.

"but only in situations when all the variables aren’t known."
That’s not true if you did understand quantum mechanics and my experiment it disproves what you are saying.

I’m sorry but you do not understand quantum mechanics and probability to the quantum level as a result I will withdraw from this debate and now I really know that you don’t understand it because I asked for more then just the physical cause if you really understod you would know what I would also be asking.

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: scottjimenez

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum