Talk:Laplace's demon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Query

Why is Laplace's demon based on the premise of reversibility?

If the demon knows that a->b and c->d, and there are 100 a and 100 c, it can thus predict there will be 100 b and 100 d eventually.

I don't know anything of Laplace's demon besides this Wikipedia entry, but I simply didn't understand it so if someone knows the answer, please add to the article :) 19:06, 14 October 2006 User:82.168.228.248 (Talk)


I deleted a section entitled Simplistic Downfall that claimed to be an encapsulation of the paragraph "The downfall of Laplace Demon". It was in fact not an encapsulation of that graf (which focuses on philosophical and information theory concerns, and was to my eyes either grossly incorrect or gave a ridiculously superficial treatment of a highly complex section of the foundational issues of QM.

Robert Ulanowicz's claim that Laplace's Demon is invalidated by the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect to my eyes. Thermodynamics doesnt have anything to do with it, since it is based on the average over many particle states owing to a lack of information on microscopic states. The microscopic states (to which the demon has by assumption has complete knowledge) are still governed by reversible laws, (measurement process in copenhagen QM excluded). I'm therefore demoting it and putting a note questioning its validity.

QuantumSage 06:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] in pop culture

This would be the same concept as the precognition of the dune series wouldn't it. Could someone who understands both better put somthing in about it.71.112.27.85 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Effilcdar


It would be more intersting if you read a fiction book, IMPROBABLE, by Adam Fawer

[edit] chaos

Should some mention of chaos theory be made and how that is integral to the problems with such awareness. 71.112.27.85 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Effilcdar

[edit] quantum m

Should mention be made in this article of hizenberg's uncertenty principal. Acordning to it alone such a demon qould be imposible in that it couldn't predict the location of even a single electron. 71.112.27.85 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Effilcdar

[edit] biased negatives and overly simplistic view of QM

The negative arguments in this article are overstated. They paint the picture that no intelligent being believes in the theoretical possibility of such a demon/intellect. It seems to state that every interpretation of quantum mechanics DISPROVES the intellect. Such people would be advised to read the many views on the interpretations of QM page, or elsewhere that are just as deterministic as Laplace. There are far too many unqualified and uncited claims that need to be deleted or at least modified to create a more Non-biased POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcb142 (talk • contribs) 22:41, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arguments #4 and #5

Arguments 4 and 5 are predicated on the so-called "citation" that states it is impossible for a material mind to compute the future with sufficient knowledge and processing power because it would have to in essense compute its own computations as well. This can be overcome by theoretically computing future states NOT including the very next future state(s), but instead, 'skipping' so to speak to FUTURE future states.

[edit] equal time

It would also be helpful to have Quantum Physics and Philosophy of Science experts quoted in favor of Laplace's deterministic theory to balance with the non-deterministic quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcb142 (talk • contribs) 22:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Well that would seem more appropriate for an article on determinism. In fact, I think that Laplace's demon should really be a redirect to determinism.Cutler 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
While it isn't an article on determinism, it is an article on a deterministic thought experiment. Therefore, the non-deterministic POV should be removed by at the very least, matching each non-deterministic argument with a deterministic argument. And in the realm of original research by contributors, philosophical arguments should obviously be removed entirely according to Wikipedia standards.Mcb142 03:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: arguments against Laplace's demon

This section of the article starts off with six assumptions that Laplace's demon allegedly rest upon. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether in fact Laplace's theory depended on those six assumptions (I don't think they do), unless that specific argument can be attributed to a reliable source who makes that specific argument, it appears that it is in violation of the No original research policy. Unless a reliable source making that argument can be provided, I'll go ahead and remove the argument from the article. - Walkiped (T | C) 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entry Paradigm Shifts Point To An Encyclopedic Gestalt Switch...

This entry should point somewhere within it to Technological Singularity... which itself should be broken down into 4 parts, but isn't. A small reminder to those writing both, don't forget an introduction and a conclusion, for good measure.

Met4foR (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About The Introduction

“

In the history of science, Laplace's demon is a hypothetical "demon" envisioned in 1814 by Pierre-Simon Laplace such that if it knew the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe then it could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of cosmic events, past and future.

 ”

Laplace never mentioned atoms or Newton's laws. It can be viewed as a simplication of his statement, but its closer to an oversimplication, Laplace intentionally used the terms "all items of which nature is composed" and "all forces that set nature in motion".

[edit] Arguments against Laplace's demon

I don't know any sources to back this up, but I'm sure the main argument against Laplace's demon is the fact that if the demon existed within the universe, then the information gathered would have to be stored using part of the universe. The demon would then have to store the information about the information about the universe. This would require an infinite amount of information stored within a finite universe, which is, of course, impossible.

I notice this is vaguely mentioned in "Recent views", but it should be expanded more thoroughly, because to me it seems like an important aspect of Laplace's demon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.30.233 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


4 May 2008:

The Smith content, while of fascinating interest and admitted relevance, is not an argument against the demon (since G*d apparently <<is>> the completed demon in Smith's G*ddish cosmology/theology/mythology) and so should be moved elsewhere. It should also be tagged as partisan/advocative, etc., since there is so little amplificatory or critical (this is controversial territory) content in this paragraph/section. One question: Is Smith or an adherent the author of this paragraph/section? The citation [2] of Smith's mediaevalist document is faux scholarship (although it may qualify in divinity schools). Thus, while fine to attribute the sentiment to Smith, the citation should either be removed or identified as deist.

(----)Dstlascaux(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstlascaux (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)