Comments on: Probability and Design, Intelligent or Otherwise http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/ Words of Mass Dissemination Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:28:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Probability and Design, Intelligent or Otherwise by: Michael Dickson http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-420 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:08:02 +0000 http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-420 Bob, It isn't <strong>probability</strong> that is 'random' or not, but sequences of events. Those events <em>have</em> a probability, but it is the sequences of events, not the probabilities, that may be 'random', at least in the sense in which I'm using the term. Bob,

It isn’t probability that is ‘random’ or not, but sequences of events. Those events have a probability, but it is the sequences of events, not the probabilities, that may be ‘random’, at least in the sense in which I’m using the term.

]]> Comment on Probability and Design, Intelligent or Otherwise by: bob http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-262 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:23:26 +0000 http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-262 <strong>how is probability non-random?</strong> how is probability non-random?

]]> Comment on Probability and Design, Intelligent or Otherwise by: Alison http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-261 Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:09:49 +0000 http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-261 I'm a Christian, I believe in a personal God. (that's a disclaimer, I guess.) Your arguments that any and every sequence has an equal probability are interesting. You have to admit that it's pretty cool the way it's turned out (you know, us being here, etc) Christians believe that without God, every person is doomed. That person can fix that by accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for their sins and rose again, giving the promise of eternal life. I'm not trying to proselytise, just stating in simple terms a belief system. Some Christians feel that if they can convince people that there is a God, they will accept him. The underlying reason is concern for the well being of other people, however that can get lost in the passionate argument. (sigh) Belief is a personal matter though. Even if God was completely obvious, there is still the possibility that people don't want to live their lives according to what somebody else says. So yeah. Thanks for not demonizing us, and thanks for a good read. I’m a Christian, I believe in a personal God. (that’s a disclaimer, I guess.) Your arguments that any and every sequence has an equal probability are interesting. You have to admit that it’s pretty cool the way it’s turned out (you know, us being here, etc)

Christians believe that without God, every person is doomed. That person can fix that by accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for their sins and rose again, giving the promise of eternal life.

I’m not trying to proselytise, just stating in simple terms a belief system.

Some Christians feel that if they can convince people that there is a God, they will accept him. The underlying reason is concern for the well being of other people, however that can get lost in the passionate argument. (sigh)

Belief is a personal matter though. Even if God was completely obvious, there is still the possibility that people don’t want to live their lives according to what somebody else says.

So yeah. Thanks for not demonizing us, and thanks for a good read.

]]> Comment on Probability and Design, Intelligent or Otherwise by: Michael Dickson http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-33 Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:38:48 +0000 http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-33 <em>Somewhat</em> off topic? ;-) Quick answer to your question anyway: 1. I'm not sure what you mean by a GHZ model that does not involve probabilities -- the GHZ equation of motion is a stochastic differential equation, and involves essential randomness (built in to the equation). There are (or were) non-linear, non-probabilistic, versions of the basic idea floating around, but they never really worked out, or were taken very seriously. 2. GHZ is 'non-local' in the sense that it involves parameter-dependence. (There is a nice article onthis point: Butterfield, J., Fleming, G.N., Ghirardi, G.C., and Grassi, R. [1993], ‘Parameter dependence in dynamical models for state-vector reduction’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 32, 2287.) However, the parameter dependence cannot be used for signaling, so there is no overt contradiction with the observable predictions of relativity theory. (On this point, the theory is similar to standard quantum theory, which involves outcome-dependence, but in a way that prevents signaling.) 3. There are attempts to write down a relativistic version of the theory, with varying degrees of success (and failure). A good place to start reading is the Stanford Encyclopedia article, here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/ Somewhat off topic? ;-)

Quick answer to your question anyway:

1. I’m not sure what you mean by a GHZ model that does not involve probabilities — the GHZ equation of motion is a stochastic differential equation, and involves essential randomness (built in to the equation). There are (or were) non-linear, non-probabilistic, versions of the basic idea floating around, but they never really worked out, or were taken very seriously.

2. GHZ is ‘non-local’ in the sense that it involves parameter-dependence. (There is a nice article onthis point: Butterfield, J., Fleming, G.N., Ghirardi, G.C., and Grassi, R. [1993], ‘Parameter dependence in dynamical models for state-vector reduction’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 32, 2287.) However, the parameter dependence cannot be used for signaling, so there is no overt contradiction with the observable predictions of relativity theory. (On this point, the theory is similar to standard quantum theory, which involves outcome-dependence, but in a way that prevents signaling.)

3. There are attempts to write down a relativistic version of the theory, with varying degrees of success (and failure).

A good place to start reading is the Stanford Encyclopedia article, here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/

]]> Comment on Probability and Design, Intelligent or Otherwise by: tung http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-32 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:28:42 +0000 http://mdickson.com/blog/philosophy/8/#comment-32 HI, this is somewhat off topic. I'm a physics grad. I really enjoy your book "quantum chance and non-locality", and is in favour of some of the central ideas. I wonder if you think that the GHZ case, not involving in any probabilistic notion and models, shows the value assignments are incompatible with locality? HI, this is somewhat off topic. I’m a physics grad. I really enjoy your book “quantum chance and non-locality”, and is in favour of some of the central ideas.
I wonder if you think that the GHZ case, not involving in any probabilistic notion and models, shows the value assignments are incompatible with locality?

]]>