Misplaced Pages

Talk:Clockwork universe

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Machine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 23 February 2013 (→Don't fully understand the new objections (Objection on Neutrality and POV): like I said...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:16, 23 February 2013 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs) (→Don't fully understand the new objections (Objection on Neutrality and POV): like I said...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject iconPhysics: History Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.
WikiProject iconHistory of Science Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

wrong redirection of search "mechanical universe"

I have no idea how redirection is set or changed in Misplaced Pages. But it is working improperly for the search "mechanical universe", which leads here and offers no disambiguation link. Theres a famous science documentary series "The mechanical universe", I should be able to reach it with the search "mechanical universe"

--93.140.101.210 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions with respect to the Isaac Newton article

The comment that Isaac Newton established the Clockwork Universe Theory contradicts statements made in the "Isaac Newton" article. That article makes these statements:

Isaac Newton "warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock"
"Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system"
Leibniz is said to have "lampooned" Newton. Leibniz described Newton's view using the clock metaphor, "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time."

The best way to resolve the contradiction between these articles is to examine primary sources.

Jeffhawkey (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics and chaos theory

Just as quantum mechanics does not imply that the world in itself wouldn't be deterministic (since there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics, some postulate determinism, some postulate indeterminism and some are agnostic in this respect), saying that we (with our limited knowledge) cannot calculate future quantum events, chaos theory does not imply that the world in itself wouldn't be deterministic, it just says that we (with our limited knowledge) cannot calculate future weather events or some other "chaotic" events. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues with claiming that "God does play dice" has been scientifically proven

As far as I know, the interpretations of quantum mechanics do not make testable predictions, they just explain the philosophy behind quantum mechanics. I am not aware that any interpretation of quantum mechanics has been falsified (this is a consequence of the previous sentence). Saying that Bell's theorem decided the matter of determinism in 1964 is misleading, since it would mean that Robert B. Griffiths, H. Dieter Zeh and William C. Davidon were complete fools (which I assume is false). Saying that quantum mechanics did not fail in its predictions is not an argument against some interpretations of quantum mechanics, since as far as I know none of them claimed that its predictions would fail (see first sentence in this paragraph). There is a world of difference between what experiments seem to indicate and what has been scientifically proven. Therefore, the claim that "God does play dice" is unproven to this very day. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And claiming that the experiments have offered definitive proof in this respect is calling 't Hooft names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Misunderstanding the Mathematics of "Interpretations"

Bell's Theorem purports to be a mathematical proof that any deterministic formulation/theory/interpretation of quantum mechanics MUST statisfy a certain inequality. ALL experiments indicate that in the real-world, quantum particles violate that condition. If the real world was in any way deterministic, the experimental results would be different but unfortunately they are not. There is ample EXPERIMENTAL evidence for indeterminism. .

And if you will read the excellent work of ‘t Hooft you will see clearly that he claims only to perhaps be able to map deterministic formulations to some stochastic aspects but admits to being unable to calculate even the hamiltonian. Without even that, he can not, and does not, claim that he has a "deterministic" replacement for quantum mechanics that can calculate anything. His work suggests avenues for further research but does not claim to eliminate the well-established and well-verified indeterminism.

I share some of the angst over the strange world of the microscopic, but misrepresenting the experimental evidence and especially putting false claims into the mouths of `t Hooft and others does a disservice to all. And what exactly do you hope to accomplish? Do you prefer to fantasize that the world splits at each instant of time into nearly an infinity of parallel universes or rather to simply note that each individual quantum event behaves stochastically which is clearly shown in the equations and leads to predictible and verifible results? The article is not about fantasy and science fiction but rather about science fact.

There are reasonable objections to IN-determinism but the claims made in that regard in your paragraph under "criticisms" are unscientific and logically incorrect. What you might argue instead are 

   1. Maybe there are non-local theories (allowed by Bell's theorem) which violate Special Relativity and transpose cause and effect but which are then deterministic which we might discover in the future.
   2. Maybe there are technical difficulties with Bell's theorem experiments that introduce some subtle as yet undiscovered invalidating error.
   3. Maybe there are strange religious arguments (which seem to be the gist of your objections) that require determinism even in the face of modern scientific evidence.
   4. Maybe someone will invent a deterministic re-interpretation/formulation/theory for quantum mechanics  and ALSO discover a math error in Bell's work in the future.

But maybe I don't understand what you are thinking. Perhaps this will help. No interpretation of quantum mechanics is able to predict anything we can measure based entirely on deterministic principles. Some have bits of determinism introduced at great fantastical cost, but all also have large parts remaining that are purely probabilistic. Only when we start by assuming indeterminism throughout do we get simple but accurate verifible predictions. It is not what I would have wished either but seems, from overwhelming evidence, to be simply true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgementSummary (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Bell's Theorem

Only a total moron who has read Bell's theorem would disagree with indeterminism if Bell would have definitively solved the problem. Therefore you call four or five top physicist "total morons". As far as I know, the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics have not been refuted. If they have been absolutely refuted, do present evidence, you cannot just throw your own opinion and expect readers and editors to take it for granted.
It cannot be claimed that there is scientific consensus that the world in itself would behave indeterministically. All we know is that the maths of quantum mechanics is indeterministic, but this says something about our limited knowledge of the world, not over the world itself. What we know is that quantum mechanics and relativity theory cannot both be true, but we don't know which is false. That is the problem: one of them is false, but we don't know which.
The issue of determinism has not been settled yet, since there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Otherwise it would not be an "interpretation", i.e. a philosophical view of scientific results, but one interpretation would be part of empirical science (i.e. a scientific fact) and the others would be refuted. I suggest reading Loopholes in Bell test experiments, especially "To date, no test has simultaneously closed all loopholes." Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
In less than half an hour I found three problems with your claims: Loopholes in Bell test experiments, Superdeterminism and De Broglie–Bohm theory. So, your stance is really weak and unsupported. You cannot seriously claim that "science has proven indeterminism" while these doors to objections are left wide-open. Science has not proven anything in respect to the debate determinism vs. indeterminism. It is just that indeterminism receives more press, that's all. Science has not spoken yet upon this matter. I don't actually claim that the world in itself is deterministic. What I claim is that we don't know if it is so or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Quote from Mark Twain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem Revisited

I don't believe any discussion or argument is enhanced by name calling and would suggest your ideas should stand on their own merits rather than on ad hominem attacks. I recall the line from Shakespear's Hamlet about someone who "doth protest too much."

What I believe you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent is that Bell's theorem makes NO CLAIM whatsoever as to determinism or indeterminism. Rather it proves mathematically that there are EXPERIMENTAL consequences for either, that can be tested in the real world. To reiterate, it demonstrates there are experiments we can preform that will prove the reality of either determinism or indeterminism. We don't have to rely on so-called "interpretations" whose nature is another issue. And you also misrepresent the sense of the argument in that 

   1. if Bell's theorem is VIOLATED by experimental results, the world is IN-deterministic.
   2. if Bell's theorem is found to be valid, the world is DETERMINSTIC....

So you have even got the direction of it wrong and should change your article which ever way you come finally come down on determinism.


So I will restate what I believe are reasonable objections to the obvious indeterminism of quantum mechanics 

   1. Maybe there are non-local theories (allowed by Bell's theorem) which violate Special Relativity and transpose cause and effect but which are then deterministic which we might discover in the future.
   2. Maybe there are technical difficulties with Bell's theorem experiments that introduce some subtle as yet undiscovered invalidating error.
   3. Maybe there are strange religious arguments (which seem to be the gist of your objections) that require determinism even in the face of modern scientific evidence.
   4. Maybe someone will invent a deterministic re-interpretation/formulation/theory for quantum mechanics  and ALSO discover a math error in Bell's work in the future.

I thought you had followed this outline in your last submission but then you misstate the results.

I would also assert that you misrepresent "intrepretations". The seminal paper on the issue, defining the term, was the EPR paper by Einstien which I gave in my section. It is highly technical but the gist is that it claims quantum mechanics is "incomplete" and DOES NOT offer different equations. In this sense "interpretations" are not like translating one language to another, but rather start everything from completely different mathematical equations. To get determinism, somehow you have to derive the wavefunction from some other equation rather than assuming it to start; because the wavefunction in itself is manifestly indeterministic. I see this misrepresented often in the popular press. Maybe you want to study this and devote some of your otherwise admirable zeal to correcting the record when you are better versed in the subject.

In light of this I don't believe your objections are reasonable; but then quantum mechanics is very controversal in the public mind; but much less so in science; our job, I believe, is not to restate muddled and obviously wrong assumptions about it... but to be factually and scientifically accurate. JudgementSummary (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

More on Bell's Theorem

Well, when several top physicists claim that the world in itself is deterministic and they had read Bell's theorem there are two possibilities: either determinism vs. indeterminism has received no definitive answer (it is not a scientific fact), or that they are completely deluded, stupid idiots who don't understand a thing about the science they profess to practice. I don't have to understand higher maths to make this point: if the top experts disagree upon whether the world in itself is deterministic or indeterministic, you cannot say that there would be scientific consensus that the world in itself is indeterministic. This is a matter of accurately rendering the scientific consensus: top experts disagree upon the problem of determinism, so we cannot claim that the issue is settled as scientific fact.
I totally agree that the equations of quantum mechanics do not allow us to predict future events, but this can be due to either the world being indeterministic or due to the fact that the equations of quantum mechanics ignore hidden variables. The world can be in itself deterministic, even if our best knowledge of the world is indeterministic.
But all this debate is utterly meaningless if you cannot substantiate your claims that the scientific consensus is that the world in itself is indeterministic. By substantiating your claims I mean quoting reliable sources which say that the scientific consensus anno 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 is that the world in itself is indeterministic. We as editors are not allowed to throw our own opinions on this matter, we have to let the sources speak. If you have zero sources you have zero knowledge on this matter, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. By sources I do not mean the popularized science of quantum mechanics as New Age stuff, I mean serious scientific studies which have rendered the verdict that the scientific consensus (i.e. the scholarly consensus, not the informed opinion of its authors) is that the world in itself is indeterministic. It is even useless to argue one way or another without quoting reliable sources. Unless you can produce reliable sources, you have no right to say that the scholars have definitively agreed upon this issue. Since, however informed, this would be just your opinion. Suppose you would be a top scientist in quantum mechanics, it would be the voice of one scientist, not the voice of all scientists. So, unless you can get is passed through peer-review in reputable journals, your claim remains unsubstantiated, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. It would all have to be deleted as original research or original synthesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BELL'S THEOREM DOESN'T SAY THE WORLD IS DETERMINISTIC OR INDETERMINISTIC

Bell's theorem says we can do an experiment to find out which way is true. And throwing around terms like "moron" and "idiot" doesn't change that. I again ask you to read the simple layman's discussion in "Fabric of the Universe" that I added to the references... So again with my points... The experiments all say that the world is indeterministic . So if this continues to bother you, then argue there is something wrong with the experiments, which in my limited circle of quantum mechanics practitioners, is a far out position. But please say that and give references... JudgementSummary (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And your continued reference to the wikipedia page on scientific consensus which doesn't discuss quantum mechanics, 't Hooft, determinism, Bell, or indeed any of the issues here, is a little silly. i.e. its not to the point. JudgementSummary (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And quantum mechanics does allow us to predict the future, just not at the microscopic level. The beauty of the system is that it assumes indeterminism in the wavefunction, and then makes accurate verifible predictions of behavior in aggregatge... see Mr. Thompkins in Paperback for simple, funny, informative descriptions. As a student, I learned a lot from it... And you do need a little math to understand that t'Hooft wants the world to be deterministic, and can make parts of the math deterministic, but not the whole thing. His work is generally brilliant and wonderful and I applaud it. I do not sanction making grandoise assumptions from what he says to support an untenable position (in my opinion...) Just a thought... JudgementSummary (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is unnecessary

All the ground is covered, better, in determiism. It's a personal essay. 1Z (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


The objection above is too terse. Basically, the term "clockwork" as applied to the predictability of nature has been in usage for centuries. It is generally associated with the rise of modern science and Newtonian dynamics and the fundamental objections, from many different lines of thought, are relatively recent. This article brings them together... Quantum mechanics was a major usurper of the dominance of Newtonian Mechanics since Plank around 1900. One point of this article is that QM runs counter to Newton predictability rather than it being a treatise on indeterminism (e.g. mind-body and all that) ... so the short review of QM features given here is a top level expose of the math predictability rather a detailed summary of the math intricacies or philosophy or even history…

So any advice as to specifics would be appreciated. Because the topic of determinism is really not the point. Determinism tends to be more philosophical (i.e. not strictly on mathematical predictability) ... This article has just been exonerated of being personal research yesterday I think because of too many references, (I suppose ?), so your two new objections immediately following are slightly different But in any event would appreciate your specific insights… thanks… JudgementSummary (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Any elaboration of your objections would be appreciated... Thanks... JudgementSummary (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


JudgementSummary, if at all possible, it's better to not to re-frame a section started by another user with a preemptive headline... also, as you're responding directly to this post, it would be better not to start a new talk page section. I've restored the section header, but I too raised concerns about the "Neutrality of Article as well as it being a Personal Essay" at the No original research noticeboard. Please don't take that as a slight against your contributions, but regardless of the number of references, the article has not been "exonerated" of original research/synthesis: significant claims being made and conclusions being drawn, although in line with the unabashedly persuasive narrative of the article, cannot be plainly verified in those sources. I don't have a problem with redirecting it determinism, but perhaps you could focus the article on the "magnificent clockwork" of Enlightenment thinkers "as applied to the predictability of nature", e.g. Le Verrier's discovery of Neptune, on paper, followed by a dark search for, and many "sightings" of, Vulcan (hypothetical planet).
Basically, there is no "theory", merely a "clockwork universe" analogy of historical interest. I suppose you could say it's "relatively recent" in the sense that Descartes is considered "modern" (never mind Cicero's sundial)... but what "fundamental objections" would there have been to such a popular analogy? Romanticism? Hypotheses non fingo not withstanding, Newton ushered in a much weaker acceptation of mechanism (philosophy), one that tolerated an antithetical and inexplicable action at a distance. Compared to the rigorous mechanism which had been in vogue, for example Descartes' substance dualism, it's nothing if not audacious. Still, the article must separate "predictably" from "determinism", to say nothing of "QM":
=BELL'S THEOREM DOESN'T SAY THE WORLD IS DETERMINISTIC OR INDETERMINISTIC=
"Bell's theorem says we can do an experiment to find out which way is true."
WP:CB would be my advice.—Machine Elf  14:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


When I click on the "talk" of the objections I go here but there are at least 3-4 other places where discussions/objections have submissions. For instance I see "...It is no longer a NORN case..." Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC) so I don't know what that means I suppose... Would like your title section to somehow say this section was on specific objections so this discussion didn't get mixed up with prior submissions... Somehow the word "theory" was added to the original title years ago, perhaps to distinguish it from other "clockwork" titles in wilipedia. I would prefer the term "historical metaphor" as I wrote in the introduction and as such had important religious/theological implications since the 17th century. It really has nothing to do with calculating/noting planetary perturbations to predict the location of Uranus/Pluto or general relativity for Mercury. The idea instead is that the universe is mathematically predictible mostly based on Newton's discoveries. Objections are mostly modern (free will since always), but entropy within the last 30 years with black holes/information theory regaining validity of the basic principles, chaos theory since 1960, QM since the mid-late 20th century but especially since 1980's with Bell experiments (not only can't predict individual events e.g. radioactivity but QM formulae with weird stuff is real), and the 20th century quantifications on the limits of logic from a math perspective... Would have much prefered to have summarized Bell in 1-2 sentences as I did originally but then needed a whole lot more references to explain it given the misrepresentations in a lot of the popular press (as opposed to science journals...) educating the world, one thread at a time... and the subject is highly technical making it harder... Also this isn't a philosophy/theological subject beyond it usage/acceptance/interpretaions by different religious bents but rather on the science/math of predictibility from various directions... JudgementSummary (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So it's a redirect to Determinism then? (Mechanism (philosophy) would be fine too).—Machine Elf  07:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Definitely not a redirect to Determinism as I thought I just explained... Why do think that? Thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That's what's being proposed.—Machine Elf  19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't seem reasonable? JudgementSummary (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't fully understand the new objections (Objection on Neutrality and POV)

Sorry... Thought the previous subject heading was on the two objections raised by the modification of "11:17, 7 February 2013‎ Peterdjones(talk | contribs)‎" made without further comment... So any advice as to specifics would be appreciated. This article had just been exonerated (? see comments above) of being personal research yesterday I think because of too many references, (I suppose ?), so your two new objections immediately following are slightly different. But in any event would appreciate your specific insights… thanks… JudgementSummary (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

After more than a week without any specifics, am removing the two objections from 7 Feb 2013... JudgementSummary (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to keep raising a kitchen sink of objections without any specifics... "11:17, 7 February 2013‎ Peterdjones(talk | contribs)‎" was the last and now :06:18, 14 February 2013‎ Machine Elf 1735(talk | contribs)"‎ are you guys the same person originally rasing the objections and then never adding any specifics except in the second person? In any event, specifics again would be appreciated... thanks... especially before you raise yet more objections thanks....JudgementSummary (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be 90% objection. That's bizarre and certainly WP:NPOV. Most of the article's content is either WP:OR or completely unrelated content.

Let's step through the WP:COATRACK...
The 1st of the 3 short paragraphs in the contrarily named "Objections Due to Entropy" section is some vanilla 'what is entropy' copy with some OR about "the Multiverses", the only non-theological mention of entropy, and the duller of the three mentions of thermodynamics, etc... It caught my attention because you had just added the Hawking citation, (that would have doubled the number of cites, had it not failed WP:V).
2nd paragraph... now this is some top shelf OR: Science proves non-ex nilo whatnot to be impossible... many invoke a supernatural being... (who finds them delicious) but has nothing to do with the clockwork universe, which is well described by (lake of) thermodynamics and supernatural origin of all pre... no, on second thought post—Newtonian mechanics "thus raising the possibility of a higher order than can be described by physics alone"... (they should have sent Brian Greene)
The 3rd paragraph claims the laws of thermodynamics support Saints Thomas and Augustine before degenerating into bizarre claims about Atheists renouncing science and entropy. Although it sports the suggestive title: “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event”, the 2nd citation fails WP:V for want of Atheists.
A or B? A: Self-revert; or B: coming along quite nicely, thank you

— Machine Elf , Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Clockwork_universe_theory
The next three sections follow this pattern. This article is the essence of WP:TEND, and without its WP:OR, it would certainly be a stub.
Wing gundam (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The word objection I do not think is objectional when the point of the section is to describe the recent science discovers and the philosophical concepts that then to discredit the older paradigm. All of which is well supported by the literature.... how about some specific reasoning rather than wholesale deletion? thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Also, Chaos theory deals entirely with Newtonian dynamics, Newton did not champion the clockwork universe paradigm, free will is the MAIN argument in favor of, or opposed to, the basic notion over more than a few centuries, the notion has strong religious overtones... But in the interest of accomodation, I changed objections to considerations even though that is much less descritive from a formal logic standpoint... JudgementSummary (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Also just because the article was just selected for retention is no reason to delete most of it... should be edited if you still feel strongly about the matterJudgementSummary (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of tags, but replaced the deleted sections in question.
It's clear that you don't understand the nature of the complaints against your edits, namely WP:COATRACK, WP:V, WP:OR/WP:SYN, and WP:NPOV. I'll try and explain them.
Your edits are characteristic of WP:Original Research. At the moment this article is literally 90% unrelated discussion and disguised bashing of determinism (and other things). This has absolutely nothing to do with the Clockwork universe theory, which is virtually never mentioned.
In fact, the telltale sign that your efforts are misguided is that not a single one of your sources mentions the Clockwork universe theory. Certainly some mention determinism, but this isn't the determinism article. Much of the content of this article belongs there (at least, in principle). From the few WP:V sources: this article should focus on the idea that physical laws exist that govern the physical world. ie if Pope John XXI's roof collapses and kills him, it's because gravity acted upon chunks of roof that were loosened by stress fractures and weathering, not because a supernatural being is angry with him.
There are 5 extremely drawn-out Objection sections, in which you've written theses about how you believe these disparate topics affect the universe. You're trying to use this article as a vessel to write an argument. While we all have opinions and wish to articulate them, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that. Even if you're just compiling the evidence together into a discussion of Determinism, that's still WP:Synthesis and it isn't permitted. You must find a WP:Reliable Source that makes precisely which conclusions you're trying to assemble.
Independent of all this, it is ridiculous to have ~4000 words of objection and less than 400 of non-objection. Even the Geocentric model does not have SO GREAT a disparity.
Given all this, content removal is entirely indeed warranted. However I'd ask that you remove this content yourself, and understand why it's not appropriate here. Don't be disheartened, you're not the first to make this mistake, and you certainly won't be the last.
—Wing gundam (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't the name "Objections." You can call them "Balloon Animals" if you want, it doesn't change their content. Really, most of this is (in principle) much more relavent to Determinism.
  • "...should be edited if you still feel strongly..." — I'm doing just that. Unrelated WP:COATRACK content must go.
  • Although the section is still WP:OFFTOPIC: you weren't listening in your ODEs class. Chaotic systems, including the Lorenz system you reference in your edits, are fully deterministic: they're just chaotic. This means computation is difficult. It doesn't mean they behave non-deterministically.
—Wing gundam (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you the same guy that moved almost the entire article to determinism just recently but with a different moniker? I ask because you repeat exactly the same lines word for word? Just asking... And would still object to the removal of most major sections. Quite a reworking as you added nearly every objection possible excepting removal which was just now rejected by the editors...

  1. You removed all mention of secondary causation which was the major theological underpining of the clockwork paradigm. You than wrongly claim Newton supported the basic concept. You then remove the description of the central beliefs of Deism which I think are central to understanding its facination with and understand of a clockwork universe.
  2. The machine of the world was a strongly religious concept and you remove mention of the core beliefs as well as a reference to these beliefs and instead insert a line claiming a "reference is required". You then remove all mention of the distinctions to be made between traditional religious organizations, Deism, and atheism specifically with regards to teachings on predictibility in a clockwork universe.
  3. In the free will section you both ask for references to every sentence and then delete references, e.g. to Blackwell. This is the kitchen sink approach rather than reasoned objections... Then you jumble the paragraphs all around breaking up the logical flow...
  4. In entropy you say that the consequences of entropy are "improper synthesis" right next to the citation by Hawking who paraphrases the exact same line three separate occasions in the same article... you didn't read it.... You even ask for a citation on "clockwork unverse" itself.
  5. In chaos theory you claim the entire section is off topic despite it being the Professor with the same chair as Newton who specifically mentions Newton time and time again. Also please note that the differential equations even in a simplistic Lorenz system are unpredictable and that nature is even more chaotic so we can't use Newton any more to argue determinism which was the entire point of the clockwork universe paradigm from day one some 400 years ago... seems like it is on topic to me? But again why do you think so... would be better to state reasons rather than just throwing around objection notices... thanks...

How about not jumbling all the paragraphs up and taking one section at a time... It's hard to keep up with the constant deletions and volumnous objections thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I would go on commenting on your other ten objections, but my head is spinning... But seriously what exactly is it you don't like about the article? Just kidding... thanks..JudgementSummary (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am only Wing gundam, and I have (almost) no knowledge of anyone else's objections. I'm trying to be gentle, because you're clearly fresh off the boat, but accusing someone of sock puppetry is a very serious charge, and can be taken offensively. Rather, you should WONDER how two unrelated editors independently arrived at Precisely the same list of objections. This should set off alarm bells that something is gravely wrong with this article.
(Again it's possible I could be horribly, horribly misreading this situation, Future Admins have mercy,) but I strongly advise you take our advice and consign your changes to trash. My interpretation is that you've written an WP:OR/WP:SYN Essay about Free Will, Entropy, and other things. I'm sorry but none of it belongs here: it must go. In your large additions, there's maybe one verifiable, non-synthetic point that can be included in this article.
I'm sorry if any edits were lost in my reversions, I salvaged what I could, for didactic purposes. It's unfortunate you've wrapped yourself up in this. Again I encourage you to investigate the determinism article. Most of what you're discussing is more closely related to determinism.
I ask for these citations rhetorically, because they Don't Exist. While you make a nice argument, and it would certainly be useful if found in a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, the fact is that Zero sources you used in your addition specifically tie the argument to Clockwork universe theory. This is a necessary prerequisite for addition to Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter how well written your arguments are. They're not sourced. You must find a source that makes your argument in its exact form, with the same intention, and with reference to Clockwork universe theory. None of your sources do this, and I highly doubt you will find a source that explicitly connects Chaos theory to Clockwork universe theory.
Barring a source, this new content must go, and it must go quickly.
—Wing gundam (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The current article, excepting my change of header from "objections" to "considerations", was exactly present two days ago when a request for deletion of the subject was rejected. Immediately after which you summarily deleted most of it twice and I restored it each time. This constitutes abuse by any objective standard as I noted on your talk page. You so jumbled up the organization it was fortunate I retained an original copy. The nearly 20 objections, you entered in one fell swoop without individual comment, yesterday, I retained.

The subject is a paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability historically based on Newton's works. Each of the five consideratons is manifestly and undeniably related to the existence of laws of predictability. The claims are well documented with numerous references. I suppose you could again nominate it for deletion but as the content has not changed since the last exercise two days ago, does that seem reasonable? Your did finally copy objections verbatum from the prior discussion on deletion; and otherwise use exactly the same phrases as the prior nom. But I will repeat my thoughts in this forum

  1. The 'world machine' and the book referenced provides the so-called 'intro to christianity' (paraphrased directly from the book in several lines and hardly an introduction) and afterwards I added several lines to distinguish that philosopy from other philosophies closely associated with the clockwork paradigm.
  2. The section on 'Free Will' has 10+ referrals to other wikipedia pages and 4 citations all of which are on point exactly, i.e. as to how free will implies a lack of predictability i.e. and the current state of the predictive art.
  3. Entropy is probably the most pertainent topic of all but as I mentioned in the articles for deletion, I am expanding it and improving its description of/reasoning on predictability. Please also note that the Hawking reference is precisely on point in supporting the point I made.. please read the article thanks....
  4. the others and QM and Chaos directly quote Newtonian considerations multiple times and quite clearly... etc...

And no, the subject is distinct enough from determinism to warrent its own article. Otherwise pending specifics, I am in the middle of filling in the entropy section and will hopefully have it ready for inspection in a few days... sorry I appear to you to be fresh off the boat, will try to do better, and do appreciate your patience... thx.....JudgementSummary (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Added references to "Chaos" detailing the well-accepted limits of Newtonian dynamics in predicting evolution of a clockwork universe and supporting the poignant comments of the successor of Newton in Cambridge on predictability of the classical systems.JudgementSummary (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. Get this through your head: this issues have absolutely nothing to do with the RfD. This topic is notable enough to have an article about it, even if it's a stub. That's all the RfD determined. I've read over it now, you may notice that many editors expressed concerns over this article's WP:NPOV, WP:OR/WP:SYN, and frankly the WP:COATRACK'd nature of your arguments. Have you even read WP:SYN?
  2. "The subject is a paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability historically based on Newton's works." — References to this topic appear in Greek writings, and in early Christian acts opposing to it.
  3. This issue isn't that your "intro" is specific to christianity, it's that it exists at all. It's WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Please find a source tying their beliefs to Clockwork universe theory. It must independently develop each argument you develop.
  4. Free Will — It doesn't matter how many (4) citations you have. None of them ever refer to Clockwork universe theory! And you develop arguments about free will in this section. You need a source that 1) develops this entire argument by itself, and 2) that connects this argument about free will to Clockwork universe theory. And none exists.
  5. Entropy — The Exact Same Problem. It doesn't matter that you're "expanding and improving its description of/reasoning on predictability.". Yes your factual sources (Guth, Hawking, Turok) exist. But you develop your own argument about Entropy! You need a source that 1) develops this entire argument by itself, and 2) that connects this argument about free will to Clockwork universe theory. And none exists.
  6. Others — I feel like a parrot. It doesn't matter how many times you quote Newton or mention Clockwork universe theory. You're not writing an essay. You're encyclopedically documenting the work of others. You can't develop your own argument. You need a source that 1) develops this entire argument by itself, and 2) that connects this argument about free will to Clockwork universe theory. And none exists.
—Wing gundam (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
JudgementSummary, you've had ample opportunity to come to terms with the objections... You know preventing others from interfering is not an option and you have been advised that if you keep doing what you're doing, you can expect your problems to be surmounted by stubbing or redirection. Don't cry wolf... consider blogging, collaborative editing isn't for everybody.—Machine Elf  22:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories: