|
On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty.  someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread)
the question doesn't make sense for me.
if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?.
|
On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty. someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?.
How does that answer his question? You just said, in a very convoluted way "I believe the brain action/output is based fully on things which can be explained in a fully deterministic world" when he specifically asked for the opposite. You're supposed to come up with something that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world, both a priori and a posteriori knowledge can be.
|
On July 16 2013 17:03 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty. someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?. How does that answer his question? You just said, in a very convoluted way "I believe the brain action/output is based fully on things which can be explained in a fully deterministic world" when he specifically asked for the opposite. You're supposed to come up with something that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world, both a priori and a posteriori knowledge can be.
determinism always asserts a priori and proves a posteriori to infinity. it's what physics does, it's what every simulation does, it's what probability does.
determininsm can not prove itself. (see my previous post)
|
On July 16 2013 17:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:03 Tobberoth wrote:On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty. someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?. How does that answer his question? You just said, in a very convoluted way "I believe the brain action/output is based fully on things which can be explained in a fully deterministic world" when he specifically asked for the opposite. You're supposed to come up with something that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world, both a priori and a posteriori knowledge can be. determinism always asserts a priori and proves a posteriori to infinity. it's what physics does, it's what every simulation does, it's what probability does. determininsm can not prove itself. (see my previous post)
And once again you are dodging questions by rambling on randomly. Why do I even bother?
|
read 'Disorders of Body Scheme' P. Haggard & D. M. Wolpert
if that doesn't answer the question i give up.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have argued from behavioural and neurophysiological data that the human brain contains a cognitive representation of the body. We have shown that this body scheme has the essential properties required for multisensory integration and coordinated sensorimotor action. From an understanding of these normal functions, we have shown that several sensory and motor disorders can be explained by reference to damage to one or more of these essential properties. Interestingly, many disorders of body scheme have both neurological and psychiatric aspects, which suggests that a coherent neural representation of the body is a key element of self-consciousness. Finally, a perhaps surprising but fascinating feature of the brain’s body scheme is the commonality between the representation of one’s own body and the body of other individuals. This suggests that the body scheme could also form a basis for social cognition.
|
On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened.  But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though.
This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened."
Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself.
|
On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:
Tossing a coin is perfectly random
That depends very heavily on your definition of random. While there's a lot of causes affecting the coin, it's not complex enough that it isn't within the realm of possibility to control. I'm pretty sure you could build a robot that could flip a coin and get the same side every single time, at least in a room without wind. Hold coin the same way, apply same force with the same aim, and it should land with the exact same result each time.
|
On July 16 2013 18:16 Tobberoth wrote:That depends very heavily on your definition of random. While there's a lot of causes affecting the coin, it's not complex enough that it isn't within the realm of possibility to control. I'm pretty sure you could build a robot that could flip a coin and get the same side every single time, at least in a room without wind. Hold coin the same way, apply same force with the same aim, and it should land with the exact same result each time.
Yeah I was expecting this response, it's not actually random that's true. A Geiger–Müller counter then!  (decay)
|
When a scientific look through a microscope to a sample of material, it is just a bunch of quarks arrayed in a unique pattern, trying to understand another bunch of quarks arrayed in another unique pattern.
Glorious, or not?
|
On July 16 2013 18:45 Eviscerador wrote:
When a scientific look through a microscope to a sample of material, it is just a bunch of quarks arrayed in a unique pattern, trying to understand another bunch of quarks arrayed in another unique pattern.
Glorious, or not?
I think that's pretty damned glorious lol. What are quarks made of? I always thought things just kept going....
|
On July 16 2013 16:23 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:34 kwizach wrote:On July 15 2013 17:45 xM(Z wrote:On July 14 2013 22:22 Reason wrote:On July 14 2013 22:07 xM(Z wrote:
"subjective values having "will"" = it's when you give a greater then value to the believes of a determined system in detriment of the believes of another determined system. (the deterministic validation for the judicial system).
"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1. Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. your definition Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused. every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. and, if you'd want to include those notions inside your determinism you'd have to: -at micro level you'd have to prove how did atoms came to have those notions (else you'll have to argue about form being more then the sum of its parts, as i said earlier) -at marco level you'd have to know the cause of the singularity. any concept that allows for either the cause or the effect to be unknown, comes from nondeterminism. What I wrote on the previous page: On July 14 2013 22:25 kwizach wrote:
xM(Z, you seem unable to understand that the existence of values held by individuals is in no way antithetical to a deterministic universe. I personally do not consider the universe to be only deterministic, simply because of the existence of random phenomena (at the quantum level), but even if it was, there is nothing about the existence of subjectivity and values that would require stepping outside of determinism. You are failing to see the connection between the micro and macro levels. It's not the atoms which "came to have those notions". The elementary blocks, which determinism says behave according to causality, can form larger blocks (for example, cells), which still behave according to the laws of physics. Evolution is the process which explains how we have arrived from elementary blocks to complex organisms. That some of these complex organisms are capable of subjectivity and reflexiveness doesn't change in any way the fact what they are made of, their physical components, behave according to causality. that is just an assumption at this point but even if you'll get to have your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything it would still be questionable. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem Show nested quote +The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
Your rebuttal completely misses the point. The exact same reasoning I presented you with applies to the universe as we know it, which features both randomness (as can be witnessed at the quantum level) and causality. Both of these make up the physical world, and there is no need to step outside of the physical world to explain how values and subjectivity can exist. They exist because of how our brain is wired, and it is wired in such a way because of how we evolved, and we started evolving from elementary blocks which belong to the physical universe (just like the "final product"). There is no need for these elementary blocks to hold values - evolution is the process which leads to complex organisms capable of holding values. There is no need for a "theory of everything" to understand this.
|
On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened. But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself.
Note that I wrote that I would take poison on an event with P=0 in a perfectly random happening, while you presented a P=1 event.
But this thread is silly. Modern physics is not fully deterministic, which doesn't mean the mind is not only chemical stuff. And even if free will and the collected, unified self etcetera is an illusion (which it is) it is a totally rad and awesome illusion that I want to indulge myself in.
|
On July 16 2013 21:00 neptunusfisk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened. But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself. Note that I wrote that I would take poison on an event with P=0 in a perfectly random happening, while you presented a P=1 event. But this thread is silly. Modern physics is not fully deterministic, which doesn't mean the mind is not only chemical stuff. And even if free will and the collected, unified self etcetera is an illusion (which it is) it is a totally rad and awesome illusion that I want to indulge myself in.
Okay well since I like you so much I'll stop trying to figure out a way to make you kill yourself. Agreed though, taking away the magic of life doesn't really have much use outside of medicine and psychology etc so it's probably best not to dwell on the subject too much.
|
On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty. someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?.
It's like the easiest question I could ask you and it doesn't make sense to you ? I hope you're not working in something related to science. When you say that something is false, the first thing you should be able to do is give a concrete counter example, and it's usually pretty easy to do because a lot of the scientific theories have counter example.
Well, so much for your last chance !
|
Here's a wacky idea, why are we so certain that our mind is a purely 3D construct? Who's to say that there's nothing going on in another dimension that is imperceptible by our senses?
|
On July 17 2013 05:36 positronic_toaster wrote:
Here's a wacky idea, why are we so certain that our mind is a purely 3D construct? Who's to say that there's nothing going on in another dimension that is imperceptible by our senses?
Which dimension would that be?
You have to provide evidence for this dimension of yours before you assert that anything can exist in it.
Or, better yet, that this dimension exists in the first place.
The only "fourth" dimension I can conceive of is not a spatial dimension, it's the time dimension.
On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened. But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself.
I merely implied this earlier but I'll be more blunt now:
You don't seem to understand the difference between a probability actually being 0 and a probability converging to 0 under certain conditions.
(also this doesn't even get into the problems of your thought experiment-in real life there are no things such as points because all measurement is imprecise. The question you're posing itself is meaningless. You need a dart with an infinitisemal point, which by definition doesn't exist-it's zero probability not because the dart will hit the square but not a point but rather that the dart doesn't exist to be thrown in the first place.)
If you haven't made the connection yet that the dart needs an infinitisemal point, then realize that if the dart's point had some area (even a miniscule area) then when it hits the board that area covers a certain subregion. If the point is anywhere within the boundary we can consider the dart to have hit said point. Suppose the dart's point is circular, then you can see where I'm going with that.
Then again, I should perhaps continue to insist that the example is meaningless and future discussion on it is likely to be equally so.
|
On July 17 2013 11:12 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 05:36 positronic_toaster wrote:
Here's a wacky idea, why are we so certain that our mind is a purely 3D construct? Who's to say that there's nothing going on in another dimension that is imperceptible by our senses? Which dimension would that be? You have to provide evidence for this dimension of yours before you assert that anything can exist in it. Or, better yet, that this dimension exists in the first place. The only "fourth" dimension I can conceive of is not a spatial dimension, it's the time dimension.
In his defense, he said "who's to say" and "why are we so certain" rather than asserting that any particular dimension really does exist.
On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened. But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself.
I merely implied this earlier but I'll be more blunt now:
You don't seem to understand the difference between a probability actually being 0 and a probability converging to 0 under certain conditions.
The probability actually is zero. It's just that probability being zero doesn't mean "cannot happen." For example, the probability of randomly selecting any particular real number in a trial is actually zero. It doesn't just converge to zero at a limit: it actually is a probability of zero. In fact, even a countably infinite number of trials has a zero probability of selecting any particular real number randomly. Nevertheless, a real number must be selected.
(also this doesn't even get into the problems of your thought experiment-in real life there are no things such as points because all measurement is imprecise. The question you're posing itself is meaningless. You need a dart with an infinitisemal point, which by definition doesn't exist-it's zero probability not because the dart will hit the square but not a point but rather that the dart doesn't exist to be thrown in the first place.)
That's why it's a thought experiment; it's not supposed to be something one can actually do in real life. But if you think "almost surely" meaning probability of one is a meaningless question, then you're very, very wrong. I'm not sure what measurement has to do with the existence of points; a point is an object defined to have certain properties in a Euclidean space (i.e. zero-dimensional). This is a totally coherent mathematical definition.
If you haven't made the connection yet that the dart needs an infinitisemal point, then realize that if the dart's point had some area (even a miniscule area) then when it hits the board that area covers a certain subregion. If the point is anywhere within the boundary we can consider the dart to have hit said point. Suppose the dart's point is circular, then you can see where I'm going with that.
The board and dart are obviously idealized mathematical objects in a defined Euclidean space. But it doesn't change anything even if the dart actually does have non-zero area, since any particular orientation of that area on the dartboard has probability zero (since we can slice up any interval into arbitrarily smaller sub-intervals). Written in another way, the dart example could go like this: let the board be the Cartesian plane (i.e. 2 dimensions over the reals) and let a dart be a vector of the form (x,y) situated with its tail at the origin. Now choose any point in (a,b) in the space. The probability of a random vector passing through that point is zero.
To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero.
If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
Then again, I should perhaps continue to insist that the example is meaningless and future discussion on it is likely to be equally so.
It's not meaningless at all. It just means that probability zero/one doesn't mean "mustn't" and "must," respectively.
|
On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 11:12 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 17 2013 05:36 positronic_toaster wrote:
Here's a wacky idea, why are we so certain that our mind is a purely 3D construct? Who's to say that there's nothing going on in another dimension that is imperceptible by our senses? Which dimension would that be? You have to provide evidence for this dimension of yours before you assert that anything can exist in it. Or, better yet, that this dimension exists in the first place. The only "fourth" dimension I can conceive of is not a spatial dimension, it's the time dimension. In his defense, he said "who's to say" and "why are we so certain" rather than asserting that any particular dimension really does exist. Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened. But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself. Show nested quote +I merely implied this earlier but I'll be more blunt now:
You don't seem to understand the difference between a probability actually being 0 and a probability converging to 0 under certain conditions. The probability actually is zero. It's just that probability being zero doesn't mean "cannot happen." For example, the probability of randomly selecting any particular real number in a trial is actually zero. It doesn't just converge to zero at a limit: it actually is a probability of zero. In fact, even a countably infinite number of trials has a zero probability of selecting any particular real number randomly. Nevertheless, a real number must be selected.
The situations are different. I agree that the probability of randomly selecting a particular real number is zero. However, the probability of selecting any number within a range is NOT zero. That's what the meaning of the dart experiment is. No matter how you look at it, you're going to be selecting a range of values.
That's why I disagree with the way the article talks about that experiment and the probability. The probability in that case converges to 0. It's not actually 0.
On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +(also this doesn't even get into the problems of your thought experiment-in real life there are no things such as points because all measurement is imprecise. The question you're posing itself is meaningless. You need a dart with an infinitisemal point, which by definition doesn't exist-it's zero probability not because the dart will hit the square but not a point but rather that the dart doesn't exist to be thrown in the first place.) That's why it's a thought experiment; it's not supposed to be something one can actually do in real life. But if you think "almost surely" meaning probability of one is a meaningless question, then you're very, very wrong. I'm not sure what measurement has to do with the existence of points; a point is an object defined to have certain properties in a Euclidean space (i.e. zero-dimensional). This is a totally coherent mathematical definition.
Sure, if you want to think of a dart with a dimensionless point hitting any given dimensionless point on a 2d plane then the probability of that occurring is 0.
Do you see what I mean? It's a question of what does this experiment actually mean. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't tell us anything beyond what we already assumed to be true. That's what I am alluding to when I am saying that this experiment is meaningless.
On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If you haven't made the connection yet that the dart needs an infinitisemal point, then realize that if the dart's point had some area (even a miniscule area) then when it hits the board that area covers a certain subregion. If the point is anywhere within the boundary we can consider the dart to have hit said point. Suppose the dart's point is circular, then you can see where I'm going with that. The board and dart are obviously idealized mathematical objects in a defined Euclidean space. But it doesn't change anything even if the dart actually does have non-zero area, since any particular orientation of that area on the dartboard has probability zero (since we can slice up any interval into arbitrarily smaller sub-intervals). Written in another way, the dart example could go like this: let the board be the Cartesian plane (i.e. 2 dimensions over the reals) and let a dart be a vector of the form (x,y) situated with its tail at the origin. Now choose any point in (a,b) in the space. The probability of a random vector passing through that point is zero. To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero. If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
This is not the same thing.
Does the dart's point have some area or not? If it does, then the probability of the dart's point hitting a particular point on a 2d plane can be interpreted differently, as the chance that said point is contained within a region described by the shape of the dart's point. If the dart's point does not have any area (i.e. it too is also a point) then again, this experiment is pretty meaningless.
I suppose you could say that it's nothing more than the pick a number experiment but I don't believe that was what he was suggesting.
As to this:
To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero.
If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
This makes no sense at all.
"if a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero"
What what?? The probability of it having been generated is ONE. Because it got generated.
Since n is finite, if you're talking about a fair coin flip, then the probability you get n - 1 tails and then a heads is just f(n) = 2^-n which is nonzero, just as with any other particular n-length sequence of heads and tails. It's not "infinitisemally" small. It's strictly nonzero.
Also, if you mean that you've observed n tails in a row, what is the probability that you now get a heads...and we know for sure that the coin is fair, then the probability of the heads occurring is 1/2. Again, nonzero.
You either have failed to communicate what you were trying to communicate or you need to consider remedial high school math.
|
On July 17 2013 01:20 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty. someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?. It's like the easiest question I could ask you and it doesn't make sense to you ? I hope you're not working in something related to science. When you say that something is false, the first thing you should be able to do is give a concrete counter example, and it's usually pretty easy to do because a lot of the scientific theories have counter example. Well, so much for your last chance !
"Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable.
- "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind." (he changed his mind not his brain so there is still hope for you).
else it's the fairies, they made me do it.
|
On July 16 2013 18:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 16:23 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 kwizach wrote:On July 15 2013 17:45 xM(Z wrote:On July 14 2013 22:22 Reason wrote:On July 14 2013 22:07 xM(Z wrote:
"subjective values having "will"" = it's when you give a greater then value to the believes of a determined system in detriment of the believes of another determined system. (the deterministic validation for the judicial system).
"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1. Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. your definition Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused. every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. and, if you'd want to include those notions inside your determinism you'd have to: -at micro level you'd have to prove how did atoms came to have those notions (else you'll have to argue about form being more then the sum of its parts, as i said earlier) -at marco level you'd have to know the cause of the singularity. any concept that allows for either the cause or the effect to be unknown, comes from nondeterminism. What I wrote on the previous page: On July 14 2013 22:25 kwizach wrote:
xM(Z, you seem unable to understand that the existence of values held by individuals is in no way antithetical to a deterministic universe. I personally do not consider the universe to be only deterministic, simply because of the existence of random phenomena (at the quantum level), but even if it was, there is nothing about the existence of subjectivity and values that would require stepping outside of determinism. You are failing to see the connection between the micro and macro levels. It's not the atoms which "came to have those notions". The elementary blocks, which determinism says behave according to causality, can form larger blocks (for example, cells), which still behave according to the laws of physics. Evolution is the process which explains how we have arrived from elementary blocks to complex organisms. That some of these complex organisms are capable of subjectivity and reflexiveness doesn't change in any way the fact what they are made of, their physical components, behave according to causality. that is just an assumption at this point but even if you'll get to have your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything it would still be questionable. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. Your rebuttal completely misses the point. The exact same reasoning I presented you with applies to the universe as we know it, which features both randomness (as can be witnessed at the quantum level) and causality. Both of these make up the physical world, and there is no need to step outside of the physical world to explain how values and subjectivity can exist. They exist because of how our brain is wired, and it is wired in such a way because of how we evolved, and we started evolving from elementary blocks which belong to the physical universe (just like the "final product"). There is no need for these elementary blocks to hold values - evolution is the process which leads to complex organisms capable of holding values. There is no need for a "theory of everything" to understand this.
there was no rebuttal then because what you quoted excluded randomness for the sake of the argument.
i was talking about a predetermined universe with no uncertainty nor randomness, with everything being cause and effect.
i'm fine with randomness and physical causality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
