Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Right on the money.

Also, I googled Tony Robbins... Hilarious.

 

I can pick up a maple leaf in the forest and each one has the same overall shape, but each one is unique based on environmental circumstance. Just because each one is unique it doesn't mean they have different overall shapes and just because the overall shapes are the same it doesn't mean each one is perfectly identical. Realiy is a mix of determinism and uncertainty imo.

 

I disagree with your premise that, overall, shapes are the same. You use the word overall like it means something that they generally have the same shape. That is, if you're not paying close enough attention, they have the same shape. But what you don't pay close enough attention to really isn't important at all. If you really think about it, technically they all have different shapes, and I would say that overall they all have different shapes. Not overall that they have the same shape. They follow two distinctly different paths in spacetime. Literally, they are not the same things. Literally they are not the same shape.

 

I think maybe he is closed off because there actually is no difference between Descartes and Tony Robbins.

They both sell themselves.

Essentially, that is all anything at all ever does. Isn't it?

Would it make more sense to people in this thread if the subject matter were described mathematically so that we have a precise definition of "selling themselves"?

Or can you just skip the bullshit and apply the word to every aspect of your knowledge to see if it fits somewhere. You can convince yourself a whole lot faster than I can that all this is even making sense to anyone at all. Because you can think to yourself. I call that " the benefit of the doubt".

Because a game of chess against yourself goes where? Is there some sort of victory within a game greater than knowledge of self?

You already know every move and thought process before it goes to the board

Unless you play with no strategy.

Which eventually leads to how there are mathematical functions that describe human behavior. Marketing, economics??!

If you are determining the value of a post, present your mathematical function, or show me something beautiful, or something ugly.

And I will show you a mirror.

 

So you think that mathematical functions describe human behavior too? I used to trip out about how the subconscious behaves differently depending on how much money is in ones wallet.

 

i think human behavior is algorithmic with some probabilistic noise on some inputs .. you cant know with certainty what the inputs will be but the output is wholly determined by the inputs. causality cannot be violated where the arrow of time points in a definite direction.

 

I think my trip was probably what you're saying is "probabilistic noise". My thinking was that your wallet determines the sorts of things that make you tick. When you have money different things influence you than when you have little money. There is a basic theory in economics that was running my thinking this way and I don't remember what it's called, but your basket of goods changes when you have a certain amount of money. The amount will vary depending on your rent and gas economy of your vehicle and so forth.

The gist of it is when you're rich you might tend to buy less top ramen than when you're poor. Or some other item like bananas or something.

Well my theory took that thinking to another level entirely, stating that the way you interpret the world is dependent upon having an amount of money above a certain threshold in order to make decisions adequately. Otherwise, if you had an amount below that threshold you were making decisions based on an incomplete set of facts. Thus your ultimate outcome was intrinsically related to whether you were richer or poorer.

 

the number of bills in your wallet is one of many variables in an algorithm, if you dont know how many you have there is a variable of sorts (a flag) indicating whether or not you should check. some variables have greater priority than others and are evaluated first, sometimes after evaluating one or more variables the rest a decision is made without taking the rest into account (short circuit evaluation); which leads to people making rash decisions.

 

My theory then was incorrect in assuming that money is the basis of all humanity lol. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs tells us this much.

 

I'd agree that people probably interpret the world differently depending on the amount of money they have, that seems to be a running theme in many of the rags to riches type stories.

However, I don't think money determines the degree of accuracy you make decisions with, if anything I'd say generally speaking it may be the opposite in terms of gauging facts. It seems that a fair amount of rich people are somewhat detached from reality of the many and probably do not evaluate all their decisions that closely.

 

but people aren't computers and arrive at decisions in ways that can not be explicitly described.

Geeez, how silly. You really stretch to make shit fit into your conceptions, don't you.
You do understand the definition of the word "overall" as used in this context, correct?
what TheProdu is talking about is the morphology of the maple leaf and that morphology is the same for all maple leaves of the same species.
The unique features of each leaf are determined by the interaction of their genetic information/morphology and the environment.
A difference in shading or air flow will have a big impact on how individual leaves develop, yet they will all exhibit the same basic morphology.

You keep trying to find mystery and magic where there is none

 

Mystery and magic are everywhere. Disagree? Get the hell out of my forums.

And yes, I still disagree that, overall, leaves have the same shape. Overall they have different shapes. That is their mysterious morphology.

 

"your" forums?

LOL


and I ask again, you do understand the definition and usage of the term "overall", don't you?

 

To neonspectraltoast: There are some similarities though. All the leaves have the same number of points for example. The all have the same maple tree DNA.

The uncertainty principle has debunked E=MC^2.

 

Couldn't the conditions of some person's decision be described ...explicitly?

 

possibly, but how do you account for the myriad of influences compiled over a lifetime that all play a role in how a particular person solves a problem.
There just seem to many uncontrollable and unaccountable variables involved.

 

Too many variables for what? I never said there couldn't be an arbitrarily large number of variables and inputs. This system does take inputs, and does produce outputs so there must be a function that relates those inputs to the outputs that are observed.

 

Too many variables for description, i think he means.

And yes, there are too many to describe.

Thats why we have the uncertainty principal in the first place. There are too many details to account for in the universe, and we are still just apes throwing poop and eating bananas reaching for an even higher branch and calling it "success" and "failure".

I don't want to think about the gravity of a solar system billions of light years from planet earth when I am deciding what kind of cereal i'm going to eat.

I understand that my answers will not be as accurate as i'd like them to be, but i'm okay with that.

 

“The ancient oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks.



It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing.”

 

I was sure I did, but I had to look it up to make sure, and it was even more for my case than I had thought.

1. From one extreme limit of a thing to the other
2. Covering or including everything

So what I am saying is that, everything taken into account, no two leaves have the same shape. Overall, they don't have the same shape. Does this mean I am living in a magical fantasyland?

Yeah, but I still don't know if I would say they are the same. Knowing me, I probably wouldn't. If you wanted to get really accurate about things, which would be a total pain in the ass, nothing sets the standard for 1 of a thing.

E=MC^2 is debunked just on the basis that it doesn't explain everything. But no equation possibly can. We are living in a mystery of the most preposterous of proportions, ladies and gentlemen.

No. Beauty isn't some algorithm. Some people will experience it in varying degrees at different times. There's never going to be a scientific way of saying "This was the best memory of all of them". But could there have been a best memory? So this is something that exists, beauty, is a part of a person's condition, and can't be described explicitly. Beauty can be created, but not described.