Yep, Regal's still alive. He's doing exams and stuff.

He'll probably be back by then.

Ah so he's alive is he. Well I thought it would be best if we buried him in his own hole. Amazingly he survived.

Chance Exam Notes





Possible question Topics;

Principle of Sufficient Reason

Probability

Scientific theories; Quantum mechanics
(chaos)
Anthropic Principle

Free will?

The Doomsday Argument



PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON

Leibniz - every state of affairs has a sufficient explanation as to how it came to be.

If we believe in chance, we reject this principle.

Can we accept this concept?
Accepting P.S.R requires us to deny the existence of chance, which is debatably unacceptable.






DO SCIENTIFIC THEORIES PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHANCE???

CHAOS THEORY

Very slight changes in initial conditions cause exponentially greater changes in final conditions. The consequences of an event, then, could be said to have a ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’.

As our ability to measure is limited, there will always be a limit to our ability to predict. Causal continuity (similar causes bring similar effects, ie; A causes B, in all instances of A and B), then, seems suspect.

(Incidentally, the concept of fractals is an interesting one to consider here. Fractals are shapes that repeat themselves as you zoom in. Thus, variations at the macroscale may well represent variations at the microscale. Not particularly relevant, but intriguing ^^)

To conclude, then, chaos theory kills off the concept of deterministic predictability.

It is to be remembered, however, that Chaos theory is totally untestable, and as such only a theory.



QUANTUM MECHANICS

Certain experimental results have been recognised as countering the arguments of determinists. One particular example is that of Electron wave-properties.
Einstein’s experiments into the Photoelectric effect showed that while particles express wave-properties, waves also do the opposite. Young’s 2-slit experiment (the details of which are more or less unimportant) showed that electrons also demonstrate wave-like properties. However, electron waves are very unusual.

Electrons can be described as possessing the properties of ‘PROBABILITY WAVES’. It has been theorized that the calculated ‘amplitude’ of an electron would then demonstrate the probability of the electron being in a certain place, while the frequency and other properties would represent other, bizarre features.

(An electron can, in fact, potentially exist at any point in the universe at any specified time. Electron tunneling (a complicated technique used to map out and thus create an image of surfaces on a slide of an electron microscope) is based on the concept that tunneling electrons are likely to ‘jump’ a gap, creating a current between two crystals. The strength of this current is increased when the gap to be ‘jumped’ is lesser. Thus, the varying current strengths across a surface will create a representation of the surface. However, the electrons do not ‘jump’, so much as that they are ALREADY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GAP. This apparent contradiction is an excellent example of the confusion the wavelike properties of electrons represent. Furthermore, this total randomness damages the determinist argument. If everything is random, and if there is this example of electrons creating currents based on probabilities, which are themselves affected by other factors (ie; the surface thickness affecting the probability of electron tunneling taking place), then how can a determinist argue that the electrons were predestined to ‘act’ just as they did?)

INTERPRETATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS THAT ALLOW OFR THE EXISTENCE OF CHANCE;

Copenhagen Interpretation;

Until perceived or measured, all existences are in potential only.

Schrodinger’s cat is a classic example of this theory. The cat in the box may be alive or dead. There is a chance of either being true, until you open the box and find out, chance does in fact exist.


Lewis’ Many Worlds Theory;

Our measurements may reveal previously unperceived aspects of our own world. This is similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

But…


Is chance merely ignorance?


ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE;

Written short, this is the idea that the Universe we live in is actually very precisely tuned to produce life. The question, then, is whether this is due to chance or accident (or, I suppose, intelligent design ¬¬)

Many basic properties of the universe, some 20 or so constants, ratios, etc, are such that conscious life would not exist under any even slight variation. Pantin said;

‘the properties of the material universe are uniquely suitable for the evolution of living creatures’

These values include;

The electron/proton mass ratio; any other value would’ve either prevented formation of atoms, or instead prevented formation of complex molecular chains, eg; proteins, sugars, etc. basically any complex molecule.

Any increase in electromagnetic force would cause almost all stars to be red stars, too cold to foster life. In addition, nuclear fusion would be impossible, hence all molecules would be hydrogen and helium.

There is talk, but no more than talk, of a Grand Unifying Theory, which is in a sense the holy grail of modern physics. It would explain and link the 4 major forces, weak, strong, gravitational and electromagnetic, and thus show fine-tuning to be nothing more than an inevitable consequence of … an admittedly unexplained event… the Big Bang.

There have been made 3 attempts to explain the anthropic principle.

Chance;

This explanation is really… no explanation at all. It simply says; ‘there was a process involved, and we got lucky.’

Design;

This argument most commonly resorts to an intelligent creator, which for some odd reason likes to fill universes with conscious beings. Alternately, Leslie’s Universes talks of an impersonal process that aims at the best possible universe. This best possible universe happens to incorporate conscious beings.

(Occam’s Razor would advise us to argue for divine creation in this case, in that we would not be multiplying the number of entities and processes involved beyond necessity.)
Many-Worlds; There are two basic models of the many-worlds concept here; Cyclical worlds – Many worlds, stretched out in time… kind of like a loaf of bread in which each slice is a universe. If the slices were 4-D, and didn’t taste of bread. Ever seen Sliders?
Branching worlds – Each action produces a multiple of branching universes, in each of which a different set of events unfolds. In such a model, each moment spawns a near-infinite amount of other universes, existing parallel to one another. The argument from multiple universes that attempts to explain the Anthropic Principle runs along these lines; 1. There are many universes. 2. Each is the result of random fluctuations in physical conditions and constants. 3. There will inevitably be some universes that permit intelligent life. 4. We as observers could only find ourselves in a life-permitting universe. 5. Therefore we should expect to find ourselves in a universe fine-tuned for life. While this argument looks to explain the anthropic principle, regrettably it doesn’t actually do anything more than hypothesise. The weakness is in the 4th condition.
As observers, we are only qualified to judge the Universe we are in. There is no way to test out a change in physical constants in a new universe, its completely impossible. The flaw in the argument above is observer self-selection.

Leslie rephrases the Anthropic Principle thus;

“The universe we observe must be in the class of life-permitting universes since how otherwise could we living beings be observing it.â€

...*pitys you* ??

hope you do well on your exam. (this is about an exam right, cus that is what i got)

you seem to have a good CHANCE of passing.

AUGH!

*dies*

Yeah I know how you feel but the worst for me has just begun. Good luck and god speed

XD

By the way what the hell are you taking?

Philosophy.

the module being Chance in the World. Its essentially some very easy quantum physics mixed with some very boring philosophy.

you should see some of the other modules... ¬¬

we got to watch a cool movie on Quantum Physics in Chemistry last year >___> it was pretty.

please note that 'Back to the Future' does NOT count as a movie on Quantum Physics




also, why in chemistry?

Welcome back, Regal san.

why thank you, bobo-san.

How are you still alive by the way?

why woudl back to the future be a movie on quantum physics? its a movie on made up, and its not even made up about physics its just made up about awesome. XD

and i don't know why in chemistry... it just was. It kept me awake - which didn't happen a lot in that class.

Yeah that would suck if quantum physics was just like that

Quantam Physics is interesting.
Chemistry is not.
Ello regal you cockney chap.
And Ixzion: institute long ass depressing class-synopsis's ban from now on.
I nearly died of boredom just from scrolling down the damn thing.

Well thats dial up's fault.

or how about i post another one?

^^ and its actually quite interesting, if you take the time to read it... at least, i wrote it, so i would think so.

and not everyone in the country is cockney, you damn Yank.

^^

I know, I also know how it eats at you when I call you cockney.

And only people in the Boston/New York corner of the U.S. are yanks you cockney fool.

And sure, I'll read it then.