1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

[Reach]

This is a bit of a semantic game, but you need to differentiate between causality in the universe and uncertainty.

I agree, the universal is causal in nature, based on a set of reactions that abide by the physical laws that founded it. There's still uncertainty for every observer in the universe, though, as this uncertainty is built right into those very laws that link the universe causally (See quantum mechanics, e.g. heisenberg uncertainty).

This can be hard to understand, but in a nutshell the causally linked rules of the universe that ultimately always determine what happens next can never be fully known. There is always uncertain information that is changed and influenced by any and all attempts to know this information. As such, it's a bit like the universe can't really make up it's mind.


Anyway, this has very little to do with the OPs original argument.

[WTFBrandon]

Originally Posted by VulcanRevenge

Before we delve into this idea I would like to say that this isn't some conspiracy theory, nor is it some strange idea about how everything is different than we think it is. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to know there is a lack of surprise or epiphany amongst readers of this post. I strictly wish to discuss what I have observed to be a common fallacy of how people organize, and categorize living beings, objects, and ideas (and yes these are categorizations in and of themselves, oh the irony)

As to the relevance of this fallacy, it has been according to my observation that a person who is of the understanding of this fallacy tends to show similar reactions to events as other people who view the world in this way. In other words, this fallacy has visible and vivid repercussions in many aspects of a person's behavior.

Let's start with an interesting question. Imagine you are the principal of a prestigious elementary school and you are interviewing children to test their mathematical capabilities. You are interviewing a certain frustrating child who doesn't seem to understand the question you are asking. You say, "If I have two apples in my right hand, and three apples in my left hand how many apples do I have?" The child briefly looks at your hands and answers, "You have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." You try to clarify by saying, "So how many would I have all together?" The child responds in the same way, "You would have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." Trying not to lose your patience you try to ask a different question, "Okay, so if there were three people in a room and another person walks into that room how many people are in that room now?" the child responds, "Who are the people?"

The child has the inability to categorize. Where most would see this as a major disability, some would understand the deep logic behind this idea. The idea is that there are no categories, that every object, and living being is inherently unique simply by existing. There are no two objects in the universe that are exactly alike. There are no two atoms that are exactly alike. In real life is there really a way to "add" objects together? Are you then assuming that by putting the objects in juxtaposition they become more than one of the same exact object?

With this train of thought we can also say that in the true world, there is only one number. On the deepest level of categorization there would only be one of anything. I am in no way suggesting that we shouldn't categorize because the only way we advance in learning is through categorization. All learning is based on categorizing and relating situations. For example, we can assume that if you bite an apple that a part of that apple will come off and into your mouth whereas the apple will have a large part of it missing in the exact place where you took a bite and of the same size that your mouth was when you took a bite. However, saying that since a certain object will react in a certain way 100% of the time so another object of it's same type will act in the same way 100% of the time is incorrect. How can something be that certain? The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. I'm sure most of us have experienced a dud firework, a device that will work only after being kicked, or a person that just won't listen no matter how hard you put effort into trying to help them do so.

You might be thinking at this point, "what's the point? Nobody assumes anything to be entirely accurate anyway." This is where our opinions would differ. Have you ever experienced anger? This emotion comes from a variety of ways and one of them can be unmet expectations, expectations you were certain an individual or an object would meet. How about frustration? Another emotion that can come from a wide range of sources one of which can be when your ideas you're certain of come into clash with another logical source.

Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept. Anger, embarrassment, pride, and frustration can be products of placing too much certainty on too few people and objects. If understood incorrectly however, this idea can destroy emotions such as confidence, hope, and love. This is why uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree. Just for example, I would say the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%. If we believe that number to be 100%, those negative emotions can come from the remaining percent of times our prediction is incorrect, whatever it really may be. If uncertainty is understood in all things, these negative emotions tend to be frequently avoided.

The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. As I am writing at this moment, I understand that what I am writing isn't even certain, that there is probably someone out there who understands completely differently than I do and can logically disprove my argument. To that person, I thank you for the competition so that I might refine my own ideas and learn from yours.

I do not ask that we do nothing or have no expectations, nor do I ask that we have no opinions or stop trying to learn about something we are uncertain of. My only desire is that we are wary and careful about what we place our confidence in and what we are certain of. It is imperative that we always leave room for error and uncertainty.

Everything you just said, is utterly and completely... wrong.

[VulcanRevenge]

"Everything you just said, is utterly and completely... wrong."

Wow WTFBrandon, are you certain about that? Please don't post if you truly have nothing to say. If you'd like to present an argument please do it in a sensible, logical manner.

Richhhard, I hope you understand that I'm referring to the present time of our understanding. I very much agree with you that maybe in the end, (assuming Quantum Mechanics are somehow more certain than we presently think they are) everything could be measured with perfect measurement. But as human beings we will never be able to reach that perfect measurement, or at least not for a very, very, very long time. As long as we cannot measure things perfectly, there will be uncertainty. (Sounds like a pretty basic concept) .

[richhhhhard]

NFD, you really haven't presented any kind of argument other than saying that everything he is saying is wrong. Any specific reasons why you think that?

To Reach and VulcanRevenge, sorry if my argument was not on target with the original post, I was mainly commenting on "Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept."

I saw that as relating to the rest of the argument. If you are talking about right now, for us, I would agree. I do not think it is something you have to accept though, the reason we have made the scientific advances we have is because of people that did not accept that everything was uncertain. If you are depressed about the uncertainty in the world then go out and try to find the answers.

On another note,

Originally Posted by Reach

I agree, the universal is causal in nature, based on a set of reactions that abide by the physical laws that founded it. There's still uncertainty for every observer in the universe, though, as this uncertainty is built right into those very laws that link the universe causally (See quantum mechanics, e.g. heisenberg uncertainty).

What you are saying is that we perceive uncertainty. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle does not prove that there is uncertainty in the universe, just that we cannot measure two things at the same time. Also, quantum mechanics is still relatively new. All forms of science are relatively new if you think about it. Considering how much we have learned in the last couple of centuries, consider what we will know in a few more. Obviously we can never understand everything, that would be a paradox, but I think it would be really interesting to see how people view the universe in a few more centuries.

[VulcanRevenge]

Sigh.... NFD, this is the third time you've come in here, and all you've said is 'you're wrong, because I think you are.' If I don't understand what I'm saying then why am I posting paragraphs of my thought process while you're posting one-liners with no backing, evidence, or information?

I can understand your frustration because you think this is common knowledge, but I'm sure you would think otherwise if you saw someone break down because their total confidence in someone or something was completely shattered. (Which, I imagine, you've probably actually already witnessed)

[NFD]

Originally Posted by VulcanRevenge

Sigh.... NFD, this is the third time you've come in here, and all you've said is 'you're wrong, because I think you are.' If I don't understand what I'm saying then why am I posting paragraphs of my thought process while you're posting one-liners with no backing, evidence, or information?

I can understand your frustration because you think this is common knowledge, but I'm sure you would think otherwise if you saw someone break down because their total confidence in someone or something was completely shattered. (Which, I imagine, you've probably actually already witnessed)

First of all, not once have I used the word 'think' in any of my posts in this thread. I'm basing what I'm saying off of facts; things they teach in school. And as to your 'posting of paragraphs', length shouldn't matter. Saying that you can't add 1 + 1 or anything that's similar because everything unique is foolish. If everything worked like that nothing would be how it is. Sure televisions and computers are mass-produced, but they're not always going to come out the same. That's not their fault. Yet if you had a room with 1,000 computers, 23 of which didn't work, you'd separate them. You'd have 977 working computers and 23 faulty computers. Yes they're separate, but when you put them all together they still add up to 1,000.

Everything we do in life is based on category. What size shoe we wear, how much of whatever we want on our plate, what kinds of books we want to read. If you had a library full of 10,000 books, but you only liked science fiction, of which there were about 500, you can't say that the other 9,500 aren't there. They're not of your choosing, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Let's say there are two copies of The Stand, by Stephen King. One of them has the cover torn off. You would still have two copies of The Stand, so whenever the books were counted, you would put down "Two copies of The Stand, King Stephen". In the end it doesn't really matter. It is what it is.

[Emo_Saur_]

mass and energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Just saying. you have one of whatever and one of another thing, no matter how you split it up, all of it combined equals......








2

[Reach]

What you are saying is that we perceive uncertainty. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle does not prove that there is uncertainty in the universe, just that we cannot measure two things at the same time. Also, quantum mechanics is still relatively new. All forms of science are relatively new if you think about it. Considering how much we have learned in the last couple of centuries, consider what we will know in a few more. Obviously we can never understand everything, that would be a paradox, but I think it would be really interesting to see how people view the universe in a few more centuries.

More specifically, that we perceive uncertainty *by necessity of the laws of the universe*, and we'll never be able to change this.

It doesn't show that the universe itself is not causally linked, no, however, Heisenberg uncertainty does prove there is uncertainty in the universe relative to any observer...look at what you just said. If you cannot measure two quantum properties with precision at the same time that means there is an unknown, or uncertain variable.

Really, my point is that you need to differentiate between uncertainty, which involves knowing, and the behavior of the universe as a whole.

It's key to understand why we observe Heisenberg uncertainty - the reason the effect occurs is because by measuring one variable, you change the other. That is, the effect of observing changes the outcome of the event, or in other words, *the effect of knowing* changes the outcome of the event.

And thus there will *always* be uncertainty, because in order to know and be certain, you have to change the outcome and be uncertain.


Anyway, I'm still not really disagreeing with you, rather, I'm expanding on your point that I felt was a bit simplistic. You could argue much more strongly that everything in the universe is causally connected rather than nothing is uncertain, because they're two different issues.

[richhhhhard]

Originally Posted by Reach

More specifically, that we perceive uncertainty *by necessity of the laws of the universe*, and we'll never be able to change this.

It doesn't show that the universe itself is not causally linked, no, however, Heisenberg uncertainty does prove there is uncertainty in the universe relative to any observer...look at what you just said. If you cannot measure two quantum properties with precision at the same time that means there is an unknown, or uncertain variable.

Really, my point is that you need to differentiate between uncertainty, which involves knowing, and the behavior of the universe as a whole.

It's key to understand why we observe Heisenberg uncertainty - the reason the effect occurs is because by measuring one variable, you change the other. That is, the effect of observing changes the outcome of the event, or in other words, *the effect of knowing* changes the outcome of the event.

And thus there will *always* be uncertainty, because in order to know and be certain, you have to change the outcome and be uncertain.


Anyway, I'm still not really disagreeing with you, rather, I'm expanding on your point that I felt was a bit simplistic. You could argue much more strongly that everything in the universe is causally connected rather than nothing is uncertain, because they're two different issues.

Good point, but can you really say there will always be uncertainty? That is to assume that we will always be limited by the constraints that we are today. Unless we develop cyborg brains though... I suppose I have no argument.

All I was trying to say is that because the observer perceives uncertainty, does not mean that the outcome is ever uncertain. As such I would say that the effect of knowing *does NOT* change the outcome of the event, because that assumes that another outcome could have occurred.In reality no other outcome could have been possible because even you measuring something and "changing" the outcome is something that could have been predicted.

I see what you are saying though, because I am talking more about that is how the universe will behave, but doesn't that mean it should be *possible* for us to understand it? And thus *possible*, to a degree, to be certain about what is to come? For the present I know that is a ridiculous goal, even understanding how one blade of grass will develop requires enormous amounts of information, but knowledge grows exponentially, so given enough time, who knows?

[devonin]

That is to assume that we will always be limited by the constraints that we are today. Unless we develop cyborg brains though... I suppose I have no argument.

I think his point is more than the Uncertainty Principle wants to say more that there -cannot- not there currently -is not- as in, implicit in the basic underpinnings of the universe is the fact that it is impossible to obtain perfect knowledge of something without necessarily causing it to change, not just that we, currently, lack the ability to do so.

[Reach]

implicit in the basic underpinnings of the universe is the fact that it is impossible to obtain perfect knowledge of something without necessarily causing it to change, not just that we, currently, lack the ability to do so.

Yes, this is my point exactly, and is a key point in quantum mechanics.

All I was trying to say is that because the observer perceives uncertainty, does not mean that the outcome is ever uncertain

Right. The outcome is never uncertain if by uncertain you mean 'not caused by something'. You can probably argue, at least in this universe, all things have causes.

The problem I had with the statement was with the use of the word 'uncertainty', because there is still, regardless of what I just said, always uncertainty.

Even if you were God, and could hold the entire contents of the universe in your mind, by interacting with the universe itself and making any observations or measurements at all, you would change the outcome of an event. Thus, even knowing EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE KNOWN, it would be impossible to predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of every event at the quantum level (This poses an interesting problem for the idea of a 'divine plan', but that's another issue XD)

[richhhhhard]

Originally Posted by Reach

Yes, this is my point exactly, and is a key point in quantum mechanics.



Right. The outcome is never uncertain if by uncertain you mean 'not caused by something'. You can probably argue, at least in this universe, all things have causes.

The problem I had with the statement was with the use of the word 'uncertainty', because there is still, regardless of what I just said, always uncertainty.

Even if you were God, and could hold the entire contents of the universe in your mind, by interacting with the universe itself and making any observations or measurements at all, you would change the outcome of an event. Thus, even knowing EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE KNOWN, it would be impossible to predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of every event at the quantum level (This poses an interesting problem for the idea of a 'divine plan', but that's another issue XD)

Haha this could go in circles forever. If all things have causes then what is uncertain? How does knowing something change the outcome if you do not interfere? I don't know if you have ever watched Futurama, but this reminds me of the episode where the brains scan everything in the universe and then as a final act the giant brain scans itself. The problem is that even if you did something like that, things would continue to happen after you learned everything that you would not know about. BUT this is what I was thinking: if you did learn the location of every bit of matter in the universe at a given time, and all of the forces acting on each bit (farfetched, I know) then from that, with the most complex calculation imaginable could you *theoretically* predict future events correctly, if you did not interfere with the event? If so then wouldn't it be fair to say that nothing is uncertain?

On the other hand if you did interfere that might seem like you are then "changing the course of history" but you really wouldn't be because the forces acting on you lead you to do that, you just merely did not include yourself in the calculation and therefore the calculation was flawed.

I don't know, this is getting way off topic from the original post though...

[VulcanRevenge]

"I don't know, this is getting way off topic from the original post though..."

naw, keep going, I feel like I've restated my original topic to death, this new spin is more interesting anyway...

I agree with you Richhhard, "with the most complex calculation imaginable could you *theoretically* predict future events correctly, if you did not interfere with the event? If so then wouldn't it be fair to say that nothing is uncertain?"

This makes logical sense. It conflicts with the concept itself to believe that we human beings know everything about the uncertainty principle. For now it answers some problems we've had with previous models but the model of the atom has changed and has been changing for the last couple hundred years. It sounds somewhat close minded to say we've found the perfect model. No, I think in at least the next century or so we'll find something to replace this model, which would be able to improve our ability to reduce uncertainty, but still not remove it altogether.

[richhhhhard]

Originally Posted by VulcanRevenge

"I don't know, this is getting way off topic from the original post though..."

naw, keep going, I feel like I've restated my original topic to death, this new spin is more interesting anyway...

I agree with you Richhhard, "with the most complex calculation imaginable could you *theoretically* predict future events correctly, if you did not interfere with the event? If so then wouldn't it be fair to say that nothing is uncertain?"

This makes logical sense. It conflicts with the concept itself to believe that we human beings know everything about the uncertainty principle. For now it answers some problems we've had with previous models but the model of the atom has changed and has been changing for the last couple hundred years. It sounds somewhat close minded to say we've found the perfect model. No, I think in at least the next century or so we'll find something to replace this model, which would be able to improve our ability to reduce uncertainty, but still not remove it altogether.

I am glad you agree. That is the way I see it too, we tend to think that what is widely believed now has to be accurate. At some point though, everything has to be questioned. That is just how we tend to move forward. But then again, without the wrong information we may never be lead to the correct information. Even if uncertainty can never be removed I think it is the idea that matters.