Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-02-25 12:11:19
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6873|Portland, OR, USA
Topic for debate?

Disorder is a function of entropy.  Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system and the second law of thermodynamics states that all systems not in entropic equilibrium will have a positive entropy value (increased disorder) until they reach a state of equilibrium.

So at a universal level, all systems -> disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law … modynamics
2009-02-25 12:28:58
s7lin
Member
+2|5887|Tejas
Entropy does not prefer order (or, rather, it is disorder).
And the universe prefers maximum entropy (and minimum enthalpy).
soooo

edit:
Or what Commie said.

Last edited by s7lin (2009-02-25 12:30:31)

2009-02-25 12:50:22
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Topic for debate?

Disorder is a function of entropy.  Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system and the second law of thermodynamics states that all systems not in entropic equilibrium will have a positive entropy value (increased disorder) until they reach a state of equilibrium.

So at a universal level, all systems -> disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law … modynamics
We can not say "at a universal level" only "within the local, known, portion of Universe".
2009-02-25 14:52:18
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
Going from analog to digital lets you do lots of neat things with logic and such, but there is loss in the transition. Because you can arbitrarily derive order from the chaotic does not make the chaotic orderly.

Kmarion wrote:

You may enjoy this.

article wrote:

But, once this is admitted, how does one show that any
unpredictable system is truly non-deterministic, and that the lackof
predictability is not merely due to some limitation of our knowledge
or of our abilities? We cannot infer indeterminism from ignorance
alone. One needs other arguments.
Such as the fact that measuring the system is inextricably tied to changing the nature of the system, as is presented in quantum mechanics.

Working within the confines of GR, nothing can surpass the speed of light. According to this article, this proof does not mean that we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, only that we do not know how. I find it difficult to continue reading said article, as it is plainly bases more on hopes and dreams than science.

Making guesses as to the nature of the universe outside the realm of science is quite religious.
2009-02-25 15:59:09
Lord_Palm-Of_Doom
Member
+11|5847|San Diego, California
Seriously? A debate about the universe.....on a gaming website.....
2009-02-25 16:04:25
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5889

Lord_Palm-Of_Doom wrote:

Seriously? A debate about the universe.....on a gaming website.....
The forums here really aren't about games too much anymore. It's more of a social forum since many of the members stopped playing BF2 years ago.
2009-02-25 16:11:53
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
Going from analog to digital lets you do lots of neat things with logic and such, but there is loss in the transition. Because you can arbitrarily derive order from the chaotic does not make the chaotic orderly.
the fuck you on?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You may enjoy this.

article wrote:

But, once this is admitted, how does one show that any
unpredictable system is truly non-deterministic, and that the lackof
predictability is not merely due to some limitation of our knowledge
or of our abilities? We cannot infer indeterminism from ignorance
alone. One needs other arguments.
Such as the fact that measuring the system is inextricably tied to changing the nature of the system, as is presented in quantum mechanics.

Working within the confines of GR, nothing can surpass the speed of light. According to this article, this proof does not mean that we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, only that we do not know how. I find it difficult to continue reading said article, as it is plainly bases more on hopes and dreams than science.

Making guesses as to the nature of the universe outside the realm of science is quite religious.
Anyone who tells you that they aren't guessing at some is a filthy liar (Excluding FM of course). Religion generally tells us of things that are certain.

It was quite detailed in its reasoning. You took away something from that article that I didn't.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-02-25 16:30:08
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
Going from analog to digital lets you do lots of neat things with logic and such, but there is loss in the transition. Because you can arbitrarily derive order from the chaotic does not make the chaotic orderly.
the fuck you on?
You used quantum logic as proof that quantum theory has order to it. Quantum logic only uses properties of quantum theory to devise a third state that can be used in computing. It does not bring out any natural order from the chaos, it arbitrarily defines the chaos as order.

For example: 101512341123

This string means nothing. I (relatively) randomly tapped it out on my keyboard. Just because I go back later and say that "101" is going to be "A", "512" is going to be "B", etc. doesn't make the initial string any less chaotic - it only imprints an arbitrary order on it so that we can derive some use from it.

In a similar fashion digitizing analog inputs develops a system of making what is relatively chaotic orderly enough to put through a computer. The digital match to the analog signal is by no means perfect and does not describe the analog signal perfectly, but it is useful. Taking the "analog" parts out of quantum theory in order to make use of the "digital" parts doesn't discount the chaotic foundation of quantum theory.

Also, I'm hopped up on Daquil right now. I'm pretty sure I failed a timed writing earlier, because I kept leaving sentences unfinished and leaving fragments everywhere. I tried to be as clear as I could, apologies.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You may enjoy this.

article wrote:

But, once this is admitted, how does one show that any
unpredictable system is truly non-deterministic, and that the lackof
predictability is not merely due to some limitation of our knowledge
or of our abilities? We cannot infer indeterminism from ignorance
alone. One needs other arguments.
Such as the fact that measuring the system is inextricably tied to changing the nature of the system, as is presented in quantum mechanics.

Working within the confines of GR, nothing can surpass the speed of light. According to this article, this proof does not mean that we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, only that we do not know how. I find it difficult to continue reading said article, as it is plainly bases more on hopes and dreams than science.

Making guesses as to the nature of the universe outside the realm of science is quite religious.
Anyone who tells you that they aren't guessing at some is a filthy liar (Excluding FM of course). It was quite detailed in its reasoning. You took away something from that article that I didn't.
Its basic premise of "We cannot infer indeterminism from ignorance alone" is flawed. General Relativity does not just say we don't know how to surpass the speed of light, it theoretically proves that we cannot surpass the speed of light.

Quantum theory makes similar statements. It is not just saying we don't know if the universe is inderterministic or not, it theoretically proves that the universe is indeterministic. It's not just ignorance, there is proof to the contrary.

Of course, these are both theories. Theories that have been tried and tested in countless experiments, but theories nonetheless. They very well could be proven wrong, and it could prove that ignorance truly is the only thing standing between us and a determinant universe. Without evidence to the contrary however, I'll stick with modern physics kthx. If you want to make wild guesses based on gut feelings, be my guest Father.
2009-02-25 16:41:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Wild guesses? Why the hell would you even suggest that? Jesus, you are either hearing what you need to hear or just aren't paying attention to my words. Whatever, you clearly need to validate yourself. Good luck with that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-02-25 16:53:43
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

Wild guesses? Why the hell would you even suggest that? Jesus, you are either hearing what you need to hear or just aren't paying attention to my words. Whatever, you clearly need to validate yourself. Good luck with that.
When compared to the culmination of hundreds of years of years of physics and tens of years of modern physics, the rationalizations of people out of their field are wild guesses.

By the way, this is your source if you didn't know.
2009-02-25 18:08:12
Jean_Peste_tu?
Yes I Do
+44|6923|Auteuil, Laval
It's a bit off topic and it could be old, that thread made me think of this;

Here’s the answer of a bonus question in a chemistry test.
Question: “Hell is exothermic or endothermic?”


First of, we need to know the real mass of hell with time.  We need to know at which level the souls get in and get out of hell.   I think that we can assume without risk that once souls are in hell, they won’t come back.  Therefore no souls get out.

Same as for the calculations for the numbers of souls that enter hell, we must look at all the different religions that exist in our days.

Most of those religions pretend that if you’re not a member of it’s religion you will go in hell.  Since there’s more than one religion expressing this rule, and that people don’t belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go in hell…

Now, let’s look at the change of speed of the volume of hell because the Boyle’s law specifies that “for pressure & temperature remains identical in hell, the volume of  hell must expand proportionally to the souls entry”.  Consequently this gives tow possibilities:

1)    If hell expands at a speed less than the entry of souls, then the temperature & pressure in hell will raise indefinitely until hell explodes.
2)    If hell expands at a faster rate than the entry of souls, then the temperature will diminish until hell freeze.

Which one to choose?

If we accept the postulate that my classmate Jessica affirmed me while at my first grade “It will be cold in hell before I sleep with you!”, and keeping in mind that I slept with her yesterday night, then the hypothesis must be true.  As of, I’m sure that hell is exothermic and has already frozen…  The corollaries of this theory are that hell being already frozen, there’s no more souls accepted by hell and therefore it does not exist anymore…  Leaving only Paradise, and proving the existence of a Divine being, which explains why, last night, Jessica could’t stop screaming “ OH MY GOD!...”

2009-02-25 18:22:07
Jean_Peste_tu?
Yes I Do
+44|6923|Auteuil, Laval

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Jean_Peste_tu? wrote:

There are sets of rules. (Gravity in example or the structure of a molecule) Call them patterns or theory, whatever.
There are no way of knowing were they're from.
The only thing we are sure is that the universe is as it is.

Then it's ordered but exceptionally originated. (randomly or with divine intervention? = another debate.  Trying to stay within the topic of the universe being ordered or chaotic not it's mean.)  Though it could shed some light if some questions were to be answered.

A mixture of both IMHO.
Are there sets of rules though?

Or just apparently ordered behaviours that we, possibly incorrectly, with our limited knowledge of the universe, assign fixed mathematical equations to?

We can't even be sure that this thing we call 'Universe' even really 'exists' (whatever 'existence' means).
It does exist, we are.  Simply this. Even at the level of a though in a brain of a super being.  We are.  We do exist we are conscious.  Doubting this is accepting that nothing is that there's no point to nothing.
2009-02-25 18:49:52
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

Jean_Peste_tu? wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Jean_Peste_tu? wrote:

There are sets of rules. (Gravity in example or the structure of a molecule) Call them patterns or theory, whatever.
There are no way of knowing were they're from.
The only thing we are sure is that the universe is as it is.

Then it's ordered but exceptionally originated. (randomly or with divine intervention? = another debate.  Trying to stay within the topic of the universe being ordered or chaotic not it's mean.)  Though it could shed some light if some questions were to be answered.

A mixture of both IMHO.
Are there sets of rules though?

Or just apparently ordered behaviours that we, possibly incorrectly, with our limited knowledge of the universe, assign fixed mathematical equations to?

We can't even be sure that this thing we call 'Universe' even really 'exists' (whatever 'existence' means).
It does exist, we are.  Simply this. Even at the level of a though in a brain of a super being.  We are.  We do exist we are conscious.  Doubting this is accepting that nothing is that there's no point to nothing.
Again, we can not say this for sure.

I may merely be a figment of your imagination.

The only thing you can be sure of is that you exist, as far as you are concerned.


also, @whoever said chaos is not ordered: mathematical chaos, which I was referring to, is unpredictable, and apparently random, but is in fact ordered, by definition.

For example, weather systems are chaotic - we can not currently predict the weather, it appears random, but is, in fact, the product of a highly ordered, but mind-bogglingly complex, system of interactions.
2009-02-25 20:24:14
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

For example, weather systems are chaotic - we can not currently predict the weather, it appears random, but is, in fact, the product of a highly ordered, but mind-bogglingly complex, system of interactions.
It does not appear random, and we can predict the weather with some degree of accuracy. When was the last time you turned on a TV?

The problem is we are not very accurate in our prediction of the weather. Our guesses are really best maybe hours into the future, and only hold decently into days and weeks. With more accurate means of acquiring data and more powerful computers capable of executing more complex simulations it's true that we would be able to more accurately predict the weather over longer periods of time.

There is a limit to the exactness of the calculation however. Because we cannot predict the exact speed and position of particles at the quantum level, it is impossible for us to know the initial conditions of anything smaller than that. This means that we will be able to predict the weather accurately most likely for long periods of time, but these predictions would eventually become inaccurate. We could never know the complete starting conditions, and therefore could never make a deterministic projection of the weather (or any system).
2009-02-25 20:34:27
Laika
Member
+75|6247
What meaning do the words "random" and "ordered" have? They are simply adjectives.

The universe, as far as we can tell, simply follows the laws of physics. Beyond that, any opinion we cast upon its behavior is meaningless.
2009-02-25 20:41:09
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

For example, weather systems are chaotic - we can not currently predict the weather, it appears random, but is, in fact, the product of a highly ordered, but mind-bogglingly complex, system of interactions.
It does not appear random, and we can predict the weather with some degree of accuracy. When was the last time you turned on a TV?

The problem is we are not very accurate in our prediction of the weather. Our guesses are really best maybe hours into the future, and only hold decently into days and weeks. With more accurate means of acquiring data and more powerful computers capable of executing more complex simulations it's true that we would be able to more accurately predict the weather over longer periods of time.

There is a limit to the exactness of the calculation however. Because we cannot predict the exact speed and position of particles at the quantum level, it is impossible for us to know the initial conditions of anything smaller than that. This means that we will be able to predict the weather accurately most likely for long periods of time, but these predictions would eventually become inaccurate. We could never know the complete starting conditions, and therefore could never make a deterministic projection of the weather (or any system).
These 'predictions' you speak of are the product of running several weather models based on very patchy data, applying a few heuristics, averaging out the results, and then some 'expert' going "I reckon it's going to do this".

The idea that weather forecasts are in anyway 'predictions' or even really 'forecasts' is laughable at best.

The reason we get anywhere near accurate results is more a fact of the weather being a chaotically ordered system than it is of our ability to predict it.

We don't predict. We guess. And we frequently get it wrong. Even in the short term. I looked at a Met office forecast in the recent past that said it would rain in Cambridge within a few hours.

Did it rain? Did it buggery.

And by "appears random" I mean on the level of what makes it rain now instead of in half-an-hours time, say. Or why it's raining here, but 10mins drive down the road it's dry. From the perspective of the average-joe-on-the-street.
2009-02-25 20:45:46
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

For example, weather systems are chaotic - we can not currently predict the weather, it appears random, but is, in fact, the product of a highly ordered, but mind-bogglingly complex, system of interactions.
It does not appear random, and we can predict the weather with some degree of accuracy. When was the last time you turned on a TV?

The problem is we are not very accurate in our prediction of the weather. Our guesses are really best maybe hours into the future, and only hold decently into days and weeks. With more accurate means of acquiring data and more powerful computers capable of executing more complex simulations it's true that we would be able to more accurately predict the weather over longer periods of time.

There is a limit to the exactness of the calculation however. Because we cannot predict the exact speed and position of particles at the quantum level, it is impossible for us to know the initial conditions of anything smaller than that. This means that we will be able to predict the weather accurately most likely for long periods of time, but these predictions would eventually become inaccurate. We could never know the complete starting conditions, and therefore could never make a deterministic projection of the weather (or any system).
These 'predictions' you speak of are the product of running several weather models based on very patchy data, applying a few heuristics, averaging out the results, and then some 'expert' going "I reckon it's going to do this".

The idea that weather forecasts are in anyway 'predictions' or even really 'forecasts' is laughable at best.

The reason we get anywhere near accurate results is more a fact of the weather being a chaotically ordered system than it is of our ability to predict it.

We don't predict. We guess. And we frequently get it wrong. Even in the short term. I looked at a Met office forecast in the recent past that said it would rain in Cambridge within a few hours.

Did it rain? Did it buggery.

And by "appears random" I mean on the level of what makes it rain now instead of in half-an-hours time, say. Or why it's raining here, but 10mins drive down the road it's dry. From the perspective of the average-joe-on-the-street.
Predictions are predictions. So long as it beats random guessing (which it does) by any amount, the success rate is irrelevant. In the same way, predictions made with as much data taken as is physically possible will become inaccurate at some point. The only difference will be that point is much further away in time than is currently predicted. Because that time will never be infinite, the system is not orderly.

You never really replied to the point though. The point is that you say the universe is some sort of "mathematically ordered chaos", whatever that is.
2009-02-25 20:49:21
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You never really replied to the point though. The point is that you say the universe is some sort of "mathematically ordered chaos", whatever that is.
And which part of chaos being ordered do you not understand?
2009-02-25 20:51:43
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You never really replied to the point though. The point is that you say the universe is some sort of "mathematically ordered chaos", whatever that is.
And which part of chaos being ordered do you not understand?
The part where you can't predict it.
2009-02-25 20:58:48
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You never really replied to the point though. The point is that you say the universe is some sort of "mathematically ordered chaos", whatever that is.
And which part of chaos being ordered do you not understand?
The part where you can't predict it.
If you look at just the results of a chaotic system, they will be unpredictable.

They're unpredictable because information is missing.

However, look at the underlying cause, and you'll see it's ordered and therefore predictable (assuming you know the precise starting state and all the rules by which the system will evolve).

But, in the Universe as we know it, as you correctly state, we can not know the precise starting state. Therefore we can not predict it. We can produce our 'best guess', but a guess is not a prediction.
2009-02-25 21:04:04
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85
That is quite the definition of ordered you have there.
2009-02-25 21:08:46
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is quite the definition of ordered you have there.
I'm not defining order, I'm defining chaos.

Chaos requires underlying order.

If there is no underlying order, then it's merely random.

Chaotic=/=random.

Chaos is psuedo-random.
2009-02-25 21:20:43
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is quite the definition of ordered you have there.
I'm not defining order, I'm defining chaos.

Chaos requires underlying order.

If there is no underlying order, then it's merely random.

Chaotic=/=random.

Chaos is psuedo-random.
Chaos requires an underlying set of rules that it is governed by, I don't know if I would call that order.

Order that you cannot predict, examine, or determine?
2009-02-25 21:38:20
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6978|Canberra, AUS

Lord_Palm-Of_Doom wrote:

Seriously? A debate about the universe.....on a gaming website.....
Hmmm... I don't know whether there exists a sterotype that gamers are stupid and introverted (second is probably true), but I don't think comments such as these help.

---

Chaos requires an underlying set of rules that it is governed by, I don't know if I would call that order.

Order that you cannot predict, examine, or determine?
I'm presuming we are using the mathematical definition of chaos (as in this paticular topic we are basically talking about the subset of physics that could be relabelled 'applied' mathematics), in which case, chaos is not random. [tangent: a fine example of chaos would be the road system of any city, doesn't have to be paticularly big. say you have a set of instructions of the 'go left, 2nd right, straight' kind to get from A to B. In a chaotic system, just a few small changes to the list, and you could end up anywhere in the city - that's chaos in the mathematical sense of the world]

Clearly, from such a definition, FM is correct - chaotic systems can be predicted. You just have to be very, very sure that your initial conditions are absolutely correct, or your prediction will be utterly and totally wrong and you'll have little idea why. The kicker here is that we don't know the universe's starting conditions, for a range of reasons (both quantum and classical) and on current theories, we'll never know, so until we get better theories (read: quantum gravity), this is an interesting philosophical debate and will struggle to go further.

In my opinion.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-02-25 21:40:11
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is quite the definition of ordered you have there.
I'm not defining order, I'm defining chaos.

Chaos requires underlying order.

If there is no underlying order, then it's merely random.

Chaotic=/=random.

Chaos is psuedo-random.
Chaos requires an underlying set of rules that it is governed by, I don't know if I would call that order.

Order that you cannot predict, examine, or determine?
Go back and read what I actually wrote.


I said that the results of chaotic system appear unpredictable.


I did not say that one could not examine or determine the underlying order within a chaotic system.


In fact we would not know about chaos if one could not dig down to see the underlying order - we'd still consider chaotic systems random, if that were case.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard