Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Sir Isaac Newton and Three Laws of a Determinism

  1. #1 Sir Isaac Newton and Three Laws of a Determinism 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    11
    In the foreword to the First edition well-known « The Mathematical principles of natural philosophy » the great physicist sir Isaac Newton wrote, in particular, that it would be desirable to extend the harmonious principles of mechanics to other natural phenomena. Since then there were some attempts to note certain analogies to mechanics in a number of separate sciences. However in wide aspect the wish of sir Newton remained non-realized.
    Today, with the advent of the concept Ring Determinism, we, at last, have an opportunity to generalize ideas of mechanics of Newton on the wide range of the phenomena.


    Let's start with the First law of Newton. We shall remind its essence: at absence of external influences the separate material body remains in a condition of quiescence or continues own uniform and rectilinear movement on inertia. The First law of Newton name else « the law of inertia ». And what such inertia? It, as a matter of fact, the parameter describing ability of a body to preservation of initial parameters of own movement.

    The formula of the Second law of Newton looks so: F = m ∙ a, where F – size of external force, m – size of inert mass, a – size of acceleration of a body. If to rewrite this formula in the following kind: a = F / m it becomes obvious, that the bigger inert mass of a body requires the greater external effort it is necessary to apply to cause its same acceleration. Actually inert mass here acts, as a measure of own internal resistance of a body to external force influence.

    In the Third law of Newton the question is that any external influence on a body causes equal opposite counteraction from its side. In other words, to any separate body always there is than adequately "to answer" external influence.

    It is necessary to pay attention to that fact, that in these laws the presence at each separate material body the certain special own internal determining mechanical origin which demonstrates ability to self-preservation and resistance to external mechanical influences is rather transparent implied. Till today's time to explain a phenomenon of presence at each separate body such the special internal determining origin the teleology tried only. Within the framework of materialism of an explanation to this was not.

    Today, with the advent of the concept Ring Determinism, begins possible to give this a strict scientific explanation and to generalize this phenomenon on more wide range of the phenomena.
    The concept of ring determinism asserts that in case of the casual or intentional closure of the ends of a segment of any causal chain and creation of the closed causal contour new steady or quasi-stable natural formation with continuously circulating inside it a specific internal determining stream can arise. The idea will be, that presence of this continuous internal stream gives rise to creation the new determining origin which allows new formation not only to affirm itself as the separate natural factor with a set of special own properties, but also to oppose itself to other world and every possible external influences in material, power, force, information and other aspects.

    Inertia is an example of only mechanical display of the internal determining origins. Generally displays of this origin can be rather diverse. It concerns sphere of the electromagnetic phenomena, phenomena and processes in biology, anthropology, politics, sociology, pedagogics and other spheres. But in all cases the panel of regulations noted by sir Newton which can be generalized by way of three the following laws of determinism is fair.

    The first law of a determinism: at absence of external influences the separate natural formation keeps an invariance of the condition or continues own movement, functioning, behaviour, development under influence of own internal determining origin.

    The second law of a determinism: the more strongly (is more high-power, is more convex) own internal determining origin is submitted (developed, expressed) in separate natural formation, the greater external effort is required to be applied on it to cause in it (its movement, life, behaviour, development) required changes.

    The third law of a determinism: any external influence on separate natural formation causes the corresponding return answer, counteraction from its side, anyway, until it keeps the structural and functional integrity. Clearly, that this answer is organized, carried out and directed by own internal determining origin from within a separate body.

    It is necessary to imply the widest spectrum of things surrounding us, including such exotic, as temporary social groups, mighty atmospheric formations, computer software products, psychological aims and others in the capacity of above separate natural formation.

    So, generalization of positive experience of sir of Newton on the widest areas of our life enables to bring in the constructive ordering principles everywhere. Furthermore the general theory of determinism receives the necessary development.


    It is time to put things in order in philosophy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    if im not misstagen this is your 4th post about the same stuff

    Determinism is dead. since quantum mechanic is random Determinism cant exist. The end


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    if im not misstagen this is your 4th post about the same stuff

    Determinism is dead. since quantum mechanic is random Determinism cant exist. The end
    steven hawking told me in book form that quantum mechanics killed deturminism simply because we cannot possibly know the exact state of a system at any one time and hence we cannot provide the exact state at any other time.

    i don't know much of quantum mechanics, other than the fact that its confusing, but i read somewhere *cough* wikipedia */cough* that uncertainty is quantifyable? ...whatever irrelevant.

    if i can give you an approxamation and i can quantify the uncertainty of position should i not be able to give you an approximation at any other time to the same uncertainty?
    so we could deturminately approximate a systems state could we not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman starry_eyed_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    26
    Determinism, whhat's that?
    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by starry_eyed_guy
    Determinism, whhat's that?
    it is the belife that you can predict everything that will happen and ahve happened if you know every state of everythign at one time
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Well even I could prove mathematically determinism cannot be true! if it iswhat you say it is!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Determinism is not true? Then why would the Big Bang have existed? Perhaps because something needs an origin, source or cause? Determinism lives.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Determinism is not true? Then why would the Big Bang have existed? Perhaps because something needs an origin, source or cause? Determinism lives.
    NO
    since dPdX > h/4pi
    wich means you cant know all particles exact position and velocity you cant have Determinism. and also since dEdT ~ h/4pi is randomly created and causes effects Determinism is once agian punctured. How can you have Determinism when things are random and cant be precised?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    i think there are two different ideas of determinism floating around in here. One, which is true, is that, in general, the past causes the future. The one that zelos is saying is that there is no way to find out everything about any physical system at one time, so it is not possible to find out what that system will be like exactly at any other time.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    If anyone is suggesting that from knowing where everything is and how it behaves we can predict the future, then I maintain that is impossible.

    If it is suggested that everthing that happens is a result of everything that happened before then I agree.

    It would be impossible for us to build a database to log the position of every atom in the universe, it, within itself would contain more atoms than there are in existence which would then require another layer... ad infinitum.

    Edit:
    Er I got called away to the phone while writing this so sorry if it seems to repeat what others have just said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Determinism is not true? Then why would the Big Bang have existed? Perhaps because something needs an origin, source or cause? Determinism lives.
    NO
    since dPdX > h/4pi
    wich means you cant know all particles exact position and velocity you cant have Determinism. and also since dEdT ~ h/4pi is randomly created and causes effects Determinism is once agian punctured. How can you have Determinism when things are random and cant be precised?
    What is dPdX > h/4pi ? How does that 'rule' function if the parameters do not exist? How can you apply the rules if there is no source for a phenomenon? Also, merely because we can not know does not mean something can not happen. The view of the universe as being written in the mind of God is long behind us. Me, I believe in intuitive logic. That is to say, I don't believe the universe is driven by laws but can be understood by certain mathematical principles.

    As such, the philosophical implications of the formula are rendered nil because they act upon the presupposition that something will act in a way. This presupposes an original cause.. It presupposes a particle of a certain trait or condition. This means that this condition or trait causes some kind of behaviour we may not understand or that may be random. Indeed, the random event is a result of something. More likely, it merely appears to us as random, as too the falling of a coin appears to be random, when it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    If it is suggested that everthing that happens is a result of everything that happened before then I agree.
    Aye, this is what I suggest. I don't like the giant computer argument.. Tout comprendre—est tout mépriser

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Determinism is not true? Then why would the Big Bang have existed? Perhaps because something needs an origin, source or cause? Determinism lives.
    NO
    since dPdX > h/4pi
    wich means you cant know all particles exact position and velocity you cant have Determinism. and also since dEdT ~ h/4pi is randomly created and causes effects Determinism is once agian punctured. How can you have Determinism when things are random and cant be precised?
    What is dPdX > h/4pi ? How does that 'rule' function if the parameters do not exist? How can you apply the rules if there is no source for a phenomenon? Also, merely because we can not know does not mean something can not happen. The view of the universe as being written in the mind of God is long behind us. Me, I believe in intuitive logic. That is to say, I don't believe the universe is driven by laws but can be understood by certain mathematical principles.

    As such, the philosophical implications of the formula are rendered nil because they act upon the presupposition that something will act in a way. This presupposes an original cause.. It presupposes a particle of a certain trait or condition. This means that this condition or trait causes some kind of behaviour we may not understand or that may be random. Indeed, the random event is a result of something. More likely, it merely appears to us as random, as too the falling of a coin appears to be random, when it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    If it is suggested that everthing that happens is a result of everything that happened before then I agree.
    Aye, this is what I suggest. I don't like the giant computer argument.. Tout comprendre—est tout mépriser

    Mr U
    Je non comprende vouz, or something, BUT

    Nimnosk chevarstzis estruska Russki?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Russian? No, I don't speak any slavic languages, although I hope to do so in the distant future..

    Tout comprendre—est tout mépriser
    To understand all is to despise all.

    ("And as for our future, one will hardly find us again on the paths of those Egyptian youths who endanger temples by night, embrace statues, and want by all means to unveil, uncover, and put into a bright light whatever is kept concealed for good reasons. No, this bad taste, this will to truth, to "truth at any price," this youthful madness in the love of truth, have lost their charm for us: for that we are too experienced, too serious, too gay, too burned, too deep. We no longer believe that truth remains truth when the veils are withdrawn; we have lived enough not to believe this. Today we consider it a matter of decency not to wish to see everything naked, or to be present at everything, or to understand and "know" everything. Tout comprendre—est tout mépriser." Friedrich Nietzsche)

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    What is dPdX > h/4pi ? How does that 'rule' function if the parameters do not exist?
    it is the uncertaincy principles that say you cant know the precis psotion and velocity of a object. dP is uncertainty in momentum dX in position

    ? Also, merely because we can not know does not mean something can not happen. The view of the universe as being written in the mind of God is long behind us. Me, I believe in intuitive logic. That is to say, I don't believe the universe is driven by laws but can be understood by certain mathematical principles.
    doesnt make sense. laws are mathematical in physics

    As such, the philosophical implications of the formula are rendered nil because they act upon the presupposition that something will act in a way. This presupposes an original cause.. It presupposes a particle of a certain trait or condition. This means that this condition or trait causes some kind of behaviour we may not understand or that may be random. Indeed, the random event is a result of something. More likely, it merely appears to us as random, as too the falling of a coin appears to be random, when it is not.
    it is random since people have tried for 100 years to find determenistic solutions but not succeded. so the chance it is random is far greater tahn not random
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    What is dPdX > h/4pi ? How does that 'rule' function if the parameters do not exist?
    it is the uncertaincy principles that say you cant know the precis psotion and velocity of a object. dP is uncertainty in momentum dX in position
    Could you apply this formula to a line? Of course not. There are rules that must be kept when applying a formula. A formula can only be used if certain conditions are applied. These conditions are the cause of the effect that we simulate or understand with our formula.
    Merely because the effect is random does not mean there is not a cause. Indeed, most random events merely demonstrate our inability to find an exact number of causes.

    Later on, you claim the following:

    it is random since people have tried for 100 years to find determenistic solutions but not succeded. so the chance it is random is far greater tahn not random
    This is not mathematical proof, nor scientific evidence. Merely because you can't find it doesn't mean its there. Perhaps we have merely met our match here, and can not understand the complexities.

    Finally,

    doesnt make sense. laws are mathematical in physics
    No.. We use mathematical formulae to describe physical processes. We use them to describe our reality in a certain manner and may or may not be good at this. More importantly, these formulae were - in my opinion - never part of nature.. We did not with science peek in the Cartesian book of God and read these rules. Merely we created principles that helped us cope with and understand reality.

    Notice that I have not even dealt with the difference between an uncertainty principle - not being able to know position AND velocity and a process being random. I welcome such an elaboration on your part.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Determinism is dead. since quantum mechanic is random Determinism cant exist. The end
    Determinism vs. quantum mechanic. Really, there is such problem. What will overcome? Time will show. In addition it is possible to see about it in other my works: “The Crapulent Experimenter (The Mental Experiment Illustrating a Situation with Researches of a Microcosm)” and “Ring Determinism Rescues a Category «Chance»”
    It is time to put things in order in philosophy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •