Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   I would say that mathematics can always be used to represent reality
>> when put in the proper context.
> 
> The fascinating thing to wonder about is ... why is this so?
> 
> Most people are so used to it that it's hard to even imagine a world 
> where this isn't true. Even the religious types try to come up with 
> "laws" that would govern the supernatural.
> 
> Of course, maybe that's just anthropogenic. If the universe didn't work 
> consistently, I'd (wild-ass) guess that it's likely that life capable of 
> wondering about it wouldn't have evolved.
> 
> And the thing about QED is there doesn't seem to be math at the bottom 
> level - it's random on an event-by-event basis. (Maybe there's a math 
> for that? I don't know of any. Statistics only deals with multiple events.)

I wouldn't say that it is truly random, but merely that predicting the 
outcome of any interaction requires information that is presently not 
available.

For instance, the decay of unstable particles appears to happen 
randomly, but at what appears to be a predictable rate for aggregate 
amounts of like particles.  What is likely is that the particles decay 
when they encounter certain conditions (such as a gradient in the 
electric or magnetic potential) that is high enough to overcome the weak 
internal cohesiveness of the particle, causing it to come apart.  Since 
the gradient of potential at any place is not (and probably cannot be) 
known with sufficient precision (and is certainly in a state of constant 
change), it appears random.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message