FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > General Philosophy


General Philosophy Thought-provoking, philosophical discussions.

Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-31-2006, 06:18 PM
LonelyWarrior LonelyWarrior is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Russia
Posts: 21
Ring Determinism Rescues a Category «Chance»

Democritus-Bacon-Laplace’s tradition

The traditional determinism at all times had nasty relations with the subjective factor. Therefore all categories, the bound with the latter, received quite imperfect submission from items of determinism. Among other category "chance" got to the full too. The Ring Determinism considerably patches a situation and makes this category extreme clear today.

Still Ancient Greek philosophers demonstrated tendency to divide all judgments into « true of the Nature » and « opinion of the mortal people » (Parmenides). As to first, a prevailing basic principle the absolute determinism here recognized. Each subject and the phenomena have the stringent causative grounding, full definiteness and regularity reigns. Concerning the second the element of a relativity and indeterminacy was supposed. Democritus quite unambiguously spoke on this subject: events which causes we do not know seem to us random. Here the manifest indicating on a subjective human condition of the "chance" and its rather unsteady ontological status conforming to this.

Item of Democritus in miscellaneous variations was elaborated in later time in transactions of F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, R. Descartes, Z. Lamettrie, P. Holbach, D. Tolland, A. Collins, J. Priestley and especially P. Laplace. The hard line of the latter has result in that become to call an absolute determinism Laplace.

Great materialists simultaneously banished "chance" from the world of an objective nature. The determinism strict reigns in a Nature and there is no place to similar doubtful categories, they considered. The status of the subjective world of the person in materialism was uncertain. Therefore and "chance" helplessly hung in air.

Let's try to recollect synonyms of a chance: unexpectedness, contingency, unplannedness, unpredictability, randomness. Subjective character of all these terms is quite obvious. The act of unmating of any event and its actualization by the subject occurs. Just the subject - explorer « did not expect, did not plan, has not scheduled, has not predicted » the given event. It is important to underline, that it is not own problem of unexpected event which occurs irrespective of an item of the subject. It is in a pure form the problem of the subject – explorer who can’t or not knows how to foreknow it by virtue of own specific causes.

In a classical event with throwing a coin the chance occurs because thrower of a coin and witnesses can’t predict outcome reliably. The person here is not capable precisely enough to measure off muscle effort for reaching desirable outcome. Therefore he cannot ensure uniquely this or that outcome and its forecast. However if to thrower and a coin to attach precise enough sensors, this outcome can be predicted precisely up to the moment of fall of a coin. Motions of arm and coin are the routine mechanics strictly subordinating to determinism and falling under precise calculations.

As to the widespread notion about chaos as absence of any order, this is a naive mistake. The chaos is an absence of order about only at a relevant level for us. This absence is always indemnified by a stringent determinancy on others, not so apparent levels for us. Analogous reasonings usable in all similar "random" situations.

Chance in the bi-causal world

Within the framework of the concept of the Ring Determinism any living organism receives the status of a causative autonomy in relation to the remaining world of the Nature. Its internal physical world develops under laws of two determinisms: customary and ring. Actually it is necessary to bind to any organism a special bi-causal model of the world. Necessity safely and with favour for itself to interact with an external world puts an organism before a problem of building of algorithm of successful conduct. By development of this algorithm inevitably it is necessary to take into account a number of objective characteristics of the world of surrounding objects. Actually the organism should forecast a forthcoming situation and for this purpose to model, reconstruct an external world by means of the internal controlling system.

At miscellaneous levels of organization of organisms this problem is decided variously: from making primitive reflexes and instincts to creation of the composite models of mind. However the general principle remains unified: while the situation develops within the framework of a model and algorithm designed by subject - organism, it is considered, that the determinism reigns. As soon as the situation leaves for these frames, starts to develop nonstandardly, takes place an unexpected discomfiture. If within the framework of a paradigm of the subject there is no argument to this discomfiture, it is considered, that it is a chance.

Such happens quite often. This problem is rather uneasy, especially if to take into account that fact, that the world around is immense, and the organism is rather narrow limited, localized in the space and time. Here it is necessary to recollect Nicolaus Cusanus who compared the person to a microcosm which reproduces ("subtends") in the own entity the huge world of an ambient nature. This microcosm creates inside itself and for itself a similarity of a universe, of an infinitely large world.

Actually any organism comprehends the world in a centrifugal mode, being guided by logic of induction: that model of the world and algorithm of successful conduct which is checked by him in the local world of the nearest surrounding, he a priori extends to all world around. Here him nuisances expect: the external world always proves much more complicated than any models and schemes.

It is necessary to recognize as a synonym of a chance « failure, an error of forecasting ». A specific field of application of a category "chance" is located in the space and time of the world of an organism or a similar self-organizing system with an adjacent part of an environment. Only here errors of forecasting are committed. Only here, on border of spheres of influence of two versions of determinism similar conflicts arise. Therefore the chance can be estimated also in the capacity of specific effect of clash of two determinisms.

It turned out, that it is possible to commit probes even in such specific borderland. Such instruments of subjective knowledge as the probability and reliability help to orientate oneself in the world of a chance. John Locke was right when spoke, that the probability compensates for the lack of knowledge. These instruments, we shall underline, are relevant for an organism only within the framework of the mentioned specific boundary world. Outside its limits, in the areas completely controlled by one of two determinisms, they have no sense and value. The same as chance, they are missing in a well-ordered part of an inner life of an organism and in all the remaining external natural world.

If philosophers - objectivists, materialists and theologists, in every possible way ill-use a category "chance", any kind of philosophers - subjectivists, to the contrary, in every possible way glorify it. In a situation of opposition of two determinisms they wholly on the party of internal world and consequently are inclined to extend mentally its regularities outside limits of the world of the subject, to thrust to the remaining world the specific properties of a local (ring) determinism. They exaggerate a role and scales of the subjective world of the person and aspire to give chance the status of an objective category, to thrust a sphere of its application outside limits of an inner life, to all remaining world.

Before occurrence of the concept of the Ring Determinism in philosophy there was no clear idea about substantial parallel co-existence of two comparatively independent physical worlds with own special versions of determinism. Therefore there was an imminent confusion, and philosophers frequently aspired to climb into this or that field with alien yardsticks of a determinism. With the Ring Determinism all goes to the own places.

Among flock of doctrines of philosophical subjectivity there is philosophical skepticism, engendered in Ancient Greece and modified by today into some schools of positivistic direction.

The tendency is characteristic for the modern positivists in a maximum degree to concentrate on directly observable empirical outcomes and on the descriptive theoretical apparatus overbuild on them, minimally resorting to metaphysical reasons of mind. Detailed definitions of on hand situation instead of causative arguments. A characteristic example: if to place the positivist in a classical situation « the black cat in a dark room » he without the slightest doubt will insist on absence of the cat, until treads on a tail to the poor creature. An empirical situation « there are no data about the cat » he automatically transfers in cognitive - behavioral position - installation « the cat not exists ». As soon as the cat will emit a wail, the situation varies on other: « there are data about the cat », and position - installation there and then varies on contrary – « the cat exists ». Agree, rather meager methodology. From this it is not too far up to a primitive “cut-and-try” method which in Ancient Greece was absolutized marginal by skepticism.

For comparison: the materialist in such situation will suppose existence of the cat, he will believe in his possible reality, therefore will start to seek indirect methods for detection of his presence, and will not hurry with resume before obtaining reliable data. Some can like the "active" position of the positivist and, accordingly, not like "indecision" of the materialist. However it is necessary to note, that in an event of presence of the cat in a room the initial position of the positivist will be on 100 % error, with all consequences implied from here.

Positivists absolutize an available empirical situation, are satisfied with that empirical luggage that is for today. For them substantial, independent of the look-out, existence of a material world is a redundant theoretical assumption. Therefore for them the fact of co-existence of two determinisms and limitation of a sphere of application of a category “chance” ensuing from it is inadmissible. They are ready to apply this category without distinction to everything that is observed by them.

The situation in physics of a microcosm.
Temporary triumph of a positivistic methodology

It was necessary to stay special better on an item of positivism to understand epistemological situation accompanying development of physics of XX century. Actually here it is necessary to establish a fact of temporary triumph of positivism. I shall not dwell on a frank positivism of the Relativity theory here. It is a material for other article. Here it is necessary to dwell on the positivistic tendency in a methodology of modern physics of a microcosm as it affects a category "chance". As a critical entry point of physics on a position of a methodology of positivism it is necessary to recognize the act of absolutization of an uncertainty, or indeterminacy, principle (indeterminacies correlation) of the Heisenberg.

For not too dedicated in essence of an affair I shall shortly explain. We shall assume, to us gave the task to measure parameters of motion (coordinate, speed, an impulse, energy …) any body. In our routine macro world it implements simply: it is possible to fix all this by sensors or visually in beams reflected by this body. Interaction with these sensors and with an incident beam practically by no means does not influence a macro body; therefore it is possible to effect so much acts of measurement, how much it is necessary.

Essentially other situation is in a microcosm. Here, to make similar measurement, it is necessary to put a probed micro particle in interaction with microparticles the same scale, placed in our probing devices. It almost the same as though we probed motion of a flying stone, throwing in it other stones the same size. Clearly, that the first such measurement simply « knocks out our micro particle from saddle », inevitably distorts initial parameters of its motion, and it will not be possible to us to receive the second precise measurement any more.

The situation with only one precise measurement (is exacter, a situation with imminent distortions in the result of each act of measurement) very complicates activity on probe of a microcosm. For definition of some important physical quantities and parameters of one measurement it happens insufficiently. For example, to speak even about a small fragment of a motion path of a micro particle, two precise measurements (two coordinates or coordinate + an impulse) are necessary as the minimum. It turns out that from attempts precisely to map a trajectory and similar things simply it is necessary to refuse essentially. If in physics the methodology of materialism prevailed this situation, apparently, would call as «a problem of the second (following) measurement».

So, newness of a situation with the description of events and processes in a microcosm will consist in impossibility for the explorer to fix precise values of some combinations of quantities and parameters. Here is it – the border zone of two determinisms: subjective (internal, ring) and objective (external, linear)! Here the chance and probability imminently appear on a foreground. To physicists remained nothing how to offer a substitution for probe of precise values of interesting parameters by special schemes of probabilistic distribution of their values in the space and time.

Now instead of the statement « the particle is in point X in an instant t » it is necessary to speak: « the object can be in miscellaneous places of some designated spatial domain within the limits of some designated time slice with miscellaneous probability which value can be calculated, proceeding from special the map of distribution presented in a matrix kind ». Too difficultly for ordinary mind? Unfortunately, in another way to describe a situation it is not possible: such is the harsh reality of a border zone.

Honor and praise to great physicists of XX century! However they are too people, same, as we with you. And weaknesses are peculiar to them too. One of them – tendency to exaggeration the meaning of own vision of the world. And as vision of a microcosm for physicists today is mainly probabilistic they aspire to present own probabilistic descriptions in the capacity of a real situation of a microcosm. For example, being not capable to make the second precise measurement and to reconstruct a precise motion path of a micro particle, physicists have decided to consider, that the trajectory does not exist at all (!).There are no also all other objective characteristics, parameters and their combinations that require two or more precise measurements! Instead of them physicists offer us the descriptive maps of probabilistic distributions, using which they effect calculations.

Here it is already necessary to say to physicists « Stop! »: guys, you have climbed not in the range! One matter – descriptive models of a reality in which you are strong, and another matter – a reality in itself. One cannot be confused with other. Imagine that makers of geographical maps will start to demonstrate the same ambitions. They will absolutize their maps of district and, it may be, even will force you to move your dwelling if it does not coincide with their drawing!

Philosophers - materialists should say today to physicists: weakness of your descriptive methods is your subjective problem, a problem of submission of events of an external world in an inner life of the subject. It is not a problem of a Nature, not a problem of the microcosm. From this, that you are not capable to make two precise measurements in a row, for a micro particle the trajectory should not disappear at all, in its world from this your weakness essentially nothing varies. The objective world exists in itself, irrespective of methods of our probe and the description. It is an unconditional element of belief and a basic requirement of common sense and materialism.

It is necessary to specify, that the physics of microcosm is only one of special sections of physics, therefore it should supplement remaining physics in the specific range of probes, instead of run counter to it. Other special section is presented, for example, by a statistical physics. It works not with separate molecules and atoms, but with their big statistical ensembles. Thus it is necessary to abstract one's mind from existence of separate particles, to refuse knowingly from their consideration. It is dictated by reasons of convenience of submission of the information and economies of exploratory forces. Actually separate particles in a statistical physics simply does not exist. However these physicists not so are ambitious, as quantum physicists. They do not attempt to negate existence of substantial particles in a nature.

Specificity of quantum physics will consist in abstraction from precise values of some combinations of parameters of microparticles. It is a question of an exotic cognitive situation when the capability to receive the information on events in a microcosm in all desirable completeness is limited in principle. The physics is compelled to indemnify this defect (we shall recollect Locke’s above-stated remark) by activity with maps of probabilistic distributions of these parameters. But it does not give the right to these particular experts to negate substantial existence of precise values. In the light of above mentioned it is necessary to recognize an uncertainty principle of the Heisenberg only as convenient for physicists computational regulations, but not as a basic principle of the Nature. So that to us lie ahead to patch at XXI century this quirk of philosophical and physical idea of XX century.

The similar situation develops on other border of physical knowledge of the world – in a cosmology. Here too it happens it is impossible to receive a total volume of the desirable information about event or object. In conditions of limitation of direct data retrieval physicists stand before a problem of the gaining of the indirect information. In some aspects probabilistic methods also are imminent. It is necessary to theorists to make much guesses for a clarification of a situation. If the positivistic methodology and philosophy here will prevail too, it is necessary to refuse consideration of not direct observable things, such as « black holes » and very much distant objects.

If to start to criticize physicists, it is necessary to add still following. I would call a condition of modern physics of a microcosm still raw enough. Today we have quantum and matrix ways of the description of the phenomena of a microcosm. Two not bad working descriptive methods. But there is no explaining method! Strictly speaking, the complete proper mechanics is not exist up till now, there are two convenient for calculations parallel versions of a kinematics of a microcosm.
Ask any physicist: why two electrons on one atomic orbit cannot have an equal “spin”? And he at once will answer you: so the interdiction of the Pauli demands. The physicist Pauli in a role of demiurge? Funny, but the fact. The description instead of argument.

The similar situation, in my judgment, in physics already was – before occurrence of mechanics of the Newton. At that time descriptive methods reigned too. Astronomers compiled tables of positions of planets of the Solar system. Physicists attempted to find in them simple invariants. The most major reaching of a then kinematics were the Kepler's Laws fixing interesting, but inexplicable regularities in motions of planets. And only with coming of the great Newton the complete rigorous classical mechanics with its causal - force substantiation was born.
I think, the full rigorous mechanics of a microcosm waits for us ahead, in not such far future. A material it is accumulated enough. It remained only to wait for coming of the new Newton. And may the Ring Determinism help him in it!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-31-2006, 11:09 PM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
The Sea must Create the New Wave of Newton

Originally Posted by LonelyWarrior
The similar situation, in my judgment, in physics already was – before occurrence of mechanics of the Newton. At that time descriptive methods reigned too. Astronomers compiled tables of positions of planets of the Solar system. Physicists attempted to find in them simple invariants. The most major reaching of a then kinematics were the Kepler's Laws fixing interesting, but inexplicable regularities in motions of planets. And only with coming of the great Newton the complete rigorous classical mechanics with its causal - force substantiation was born.
You have put your finger exactly on the details of the deplorable state of modern physics. The new vision that will fix this sorry state is the simple realization that our galaxies are collections of micro galaxies and not just collections of atoms. "Atoms" are merely the centers of very very old galaxies. Once this vision/new paradigm takes hold, and research is redirected toward what is surrounding atoms instead of what is inside atoms we will be able to either directly or indirectly verify that micro stellar systems orbit atoms. This is a fractal decomposition of the world into galaxies of galaxies. There is only one type of particle to understand it is a galaxy in its two forms; 1) tiny/micro and old and 2) big/macro and young.

The "Standard Theory" is a seriously flawed description of the micro world. This is because we have only given any credibility to theories of matter whose predictions correlate with what will happen from the point of view of an experimenter when he tests his theory in the lab. Our imaginations have been imprisoned with a bondage made out of a naive empiricism.

We might have realized this sooner if our early theories had not actually been very close to the truth. Bohr's initial vision, the planetary model cast atoms as little solar systems with the electrons as planets. When this analogy broke down, it seems our passion for a “vision” of the micro world got replaced by a more modest drive for mathematical predictability. We could after all still hang on to the sweeping notion that we were reducing the complex world to a simpler notion that still rung partially true to Democritus’ vision of atoms. Of course we sharpened his vision further by finding both smaller particles composing the indivisible atom and its equivalent quantum probability wave function. Our hope for a vision of the micro world was replaced by statistical calculations of the finest brand. Unfortunately, this is just a small step up from the tables of the retrograde motion of the planets.

We have to start thinking of the “Standard Theory” just as we think of an “Old World” map of the world. It retains what little beauty it has if one imagines that there is nothing more to the micro world than the “atom”. But what this quaint old vision does in fact do is replace all these old micro galaxies that have “atomized” centers with a mere mathematical description of their galactic centers. What it ignores completely is the possibility of the sentience orbiting the “atom”. And you might ask of what significance could this orbiting sentience be?

To answer that question I’ll give you an analogy. When you go to dinner at someone’s house and you find the dinner table set with the utmost of care and appeal to beautiful presentation, is your first thought, “My what a wonderful quantum fluctuation”? No, in the macro world we believe in the “Principle of Sufficient Reason”. There are reasons why things are the way they are and not some other way. In this modern world we are left we either “quantum fluctuations” or an act of God for our causal understanding of the gift of the world. The table of the world was either set by God’s magic or science’s magic. Which is the bigger presumption, that atoms were constructed by God, quantum fluctuations or sentient micro civilizations? To presume “God” was required is the reason of last choice. That leaves the inquiring mind no where to go. What if we had concluded that sickness was just God’s punishment and that there were no disease agents? What if we just said that we get sick at random with each disease manifesting itself with certain probabilities? We should only give up on reason when we get to the final mysteries. When we find art work that exhibits design in caves it perforce means that our ancestors were around at that time. It is merely the existence of the intelligent design of atoms that implies our micro ancestors were around before the BB. It is the mere existence of cellular organisms whose behavior cannot be predicted by the chemistry of the molecular parts that implies they are still with us in soul.

Originally Posted by LonelyWarrior
I think, the full rigorous mechanics of a microcosm waits for us ahead, in not such far future. A material it is accumulated enough. It remained only to wait for coming of the new Newton. And may the Ring Determinism help him in it!
In all humility I claim this role. But I will never be the new Newton unless people wake up to the truth of what I am saying. My wave will never rise without the sea pushing me up.

Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Secrets of The Lord of the Rings Violet Spirit Movies, Music, Books, and TV Shows 16 09-09-2008 08:40 AM
New Discovery peacegirl Off-topic 312 08-12-2007 06:55 AM
Sir Isaac Newton and Three Laws of a Determinism LonelyWarrior General Science and Nature 8 09-07-2006 10:32 AM
Ring Determinism Rescues a Category «Chance» LonelyWarrior General Science and Nature 2 09-07-2006 10:29 AM
Ring Determinism and Science about a Person and His Knowledge LonelyWarrior General Philosophy 5 06-17-2006 02:15 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network