Are Chemical Reactions non-Random?

rainbow · #1 by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 6:46 am

From:
creationism/four-power-questins-to-ask-an-evolutionist-t5132-50.html#p135779

What is the Deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions?

Spearthrower · #2 by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 8:17 am

Take 25.....

Action.

*sigh*

sam_j · #3 by **sam_j** » Apr 19, 2010 8:21 am

rainbow wrote:From:
Are Chemical Reactions non-Random?
...
What is the Deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions?

First, how do you know there is one (ie a deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions), and secondly, is deterministic the same as non-random?

Thirdly, haven't you already got other threads like this one? Why a new one?

And fourthly, why is "Chemical Reactions" capitalised in your post?

rainbow · #4 by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 8:36 am

sam_j wrote:
rainbow wrote:From:
Are Chemical Reactions non-Random?
...
What is the Deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions?

First, how do you know there is one (ie a deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions), and secondly, is deterministic the same as non-random?

Thirdly, haven't you already got other threads like this one? Why a new one?

And fourthly, why is "Chemical Reactions" capitalised in your post?

Works like this, sam.
You answer my questions before expecting me to answer yours.
OK?

Rumraket · #5 by **Rumraket** » Apr 19, 2010 8:38 am

rainbow wrote:
sam_j wrote:
rainbow wrote:From:
Are Chemical Reactions non-Random?
...
What is the Deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions?

First, how do you know there is one (ie a deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions), and secondly, is deterministic the same as non-random?

Thirdly, haven't you already got other threads like this one? Why a new one?

And fourthly, why is "Chemical Reactions" capitalised in your post?

Works like this, sam.
You answer my questions before expecting me to answer yours.
OK?

Spearthrower · #6 by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 8:42 am

Rainbow wrote:Works like this, sam.
You answer my questions before expecting me to answer yours.
OK?

No, cut, cut, cut!

This is precisely the same problem that occurred in the last 25 takes.

Rainbow: your initial post is titled with a question asking IF chemical reactions are non-random, then your post's question asks what determines chemical reactions. To answer the latter, one has to agree with the former. It's a bit much to expect people to follow this thread by means of open questions.

Why not (and this is an honest suggestion that I am sure would net better interaction with people) state an argument and support it, then invite people to dispute your claims.

I.e.

Chemical reactions ARE non-random and the deterministic force is electromagnetism.

Then provide some reasoning.

Otherwise, we're going to have another recap of all the previous posts, and we all know how that ends. For the sake of good discussion, please consider my suggestion.

rainbow · #7 by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 8:47 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Rainbow wrote:Works like this, sam.
You answer my questions before expecting me to answer yours.
OK?

No, cut, cut, cut!

This is precisely the same problem that occurred in the last 25 takes.

Rainbow: your initial post is titled with a question asking IF chemical reactions are non-random, then your post's question asks what determines chemical reactions. To answer the latter, one has to agree with the former. It's a bit much to expect people to follow this thread by means of open questions.

Why not (and this is an honest suggestion that I am sure would net better interaction with people) state an argument and support it, then invite people to dispute your claims.

I.e.

Chemical reactions ARE non-random and the deterministic force is electromagnetism.

Then provide some reasoning.

Otherwise, we're going to have another recap of all the previous posts, and we all know how that ends. For the sake of good discussion, please consider my suggestion.

Thanks for your suggestion, spear.
However, I wish to open the thread as a question.
...now a suggestion for you.
If you don't know the answer, you say:
"I don't know"

Mononoke · #8 by **Mononoke** » Apr 19, 2010 8:54 am

electromagnetism, 2nd law, paulie's exclusion principle, uncertainty principle. That is what comes to my mind?

Spearthrower · #9 by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 8:59 am

rainbow wrote:
Thanks for your suggestion, spear.
However, I wish to open the thread as a question.
...now a suggestion for you.
If you don't know the answer, you say:
"I don't know"

You do realise that this is going to lead to the same shit that happened before, right?

On your head be it then, I tried to give you fair warning.

My response, for what it's worth:

Chemical reactions are non-random but the interaction of limited local rules can generate more complexity in the subsequent state and between states. Therefore the succeeding subsequent states were not wholly determined by the initial state meaning that 'determinism' is only valid when looking at a particularly defined, limited scope. To say that the final state was determined by the primary state is incorrect, in my understanding.

The 'force' is electromagnetism, and the process by which it stablises the attraction/repulsion of electrons is called covalent bonding.

rainbow · **#10** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 9:04 am

Mononoke wrote:electromagnetism, 2nd law, paulie's exclusion principle, uncertainty principle. That is what comes to my mind?

Thanks, so chemical reactions would be non-Random in the same way as spinning a coin is non-Random.
...subject to physical laws such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, force and acceleration.
What is random then?

BTW I was using deterministic in the sense of:

Deterministic Not random. Contrasts with stochastic.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/d.html

Spearthrower · **#11** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 9:06 am

rainbow wrote:
Mononoke wrote:electromagnetism, 2nd law, paulie's exclusion principle, uncertainty principle. That is what comes to my mind?

Thanks, so chemical reactions would be non-Random in the same way as spinning a coin is non-Random.
...subject to physical laws such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, force and acceleration.
What is random then?

Does not compute.

rainbow · **#12** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 9:12 am

Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Mononoke wrote:electromagnetism, 2nd law, paulie's exclusion principle, uncertainty principle. That is what comes to my mind?

Thanks, so chemical reactions would be non-Random in the same way as spinning a coin is non-Random.
...subject to physical laws such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, force and acceleration.
What is random then?

Does not compute.

Does too!
...unless you're implying that coins are somehow subject to 'randomisation' that doesn't apply to molecules.
How so?

Spearthrower · **#13** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 9:15 am

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Mononoke wrote:electromagnetism, 2nd law, paulie's exclusion principle, uncertainty principle. That is what comes to my mind?

Thanks, so chemical reactions would be non-Random in the same way as spinning a coin is non-Random.
...subject to physical laws such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, force and acceleration.
What is random then?

Does not compute.

Does too!
...unless you're implying that coins are somehow subject to 'randomisation' that doesn't apply to molecules.
How so?

If you read the list of factors you stipulated, you have already answered your own question.

Many contradictory determiners with changing parameters provides the randomness in the 'spinning' coin. Subsequent state not predicted or predictable by the preceding state - it's random. Secondly, a coin toss has only two potential outcomes, so it is a poor analogy.

Spearthrower · **#14** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 9:19 am

Your turn Rainbow! :thumbup:

Please insert answer here:

>

<

rainbow · **#15** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 9:23 am

Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Mononoke wrote:electromagnetism, 2nd law, paulie's exclusion principle, uncertainty principle. That is what comes to my mind?

Thanks, so chemical reactions would be non-Random in the same way as spinning a coin is non-Random.
...subject to physical laws such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, force and acceleration.
What is random then?

Does not compute.

Does too!
...unless you're implying that coins are somehow subject to 'randomisation' that doesn't apply to molecules.
How so?

If you read the list of factors you stipulated, you have already answered your own question.

Many contradictory determiners with changing parameters provides the randomness in the 'spinning' coin. Subsequent state not predicted or predictable by the preceding state - it's random. Secondly, a coin toss has only two potential outcomes, so it is a poor analogy.

Every chemical reaction takes place as a result of a collision of molecules (or ions, atoms) moving though space. The chances of this collision are determined by very much the same physical laws that govern tossed coins.

Mononoke · **#16** by **Mononoke** » Apr 19, 2010 9:27 am

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Thanks, so chemical reactions would be non-Random in the same way as spinning a coin is non-Random.
...subject to physical laws such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, force and acceleration.
What is random then?

Does not compute.

Does too!
...unless you're implying that coins are somehow subject to 'randomisation' that doesn't apply to molecules.
How so?

If you read the list of factors you stipulated, you have already answered your own question.

Many contradictory determiners with changing parameters provides the randomness in the 'spinning' coin. Subsequent state not predicted or predictable by the preceding state - it's random. Secondly, a coin toss has only two potential outcomes, so it is a poor analogy.

Every chemical reaction takes place as a result of a collision of molecules (or ions, atoms) moving though space. The chances of this collision are determined by very much the same physical laws that govern tossed coins.

Not really. electrons are small, so they exhibit wave charachteristics

Spearthrower · **#17** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 9:30 am

rainbow wrote:
Every chemical reaction takes place as a result of a collision of molecules (or ions, atoms) moving though space. The chances of this collision are determined by very much the same physical laws that govern tossed coins.

Too many contradictory parameters for the coin toss to be analogous, I'm afraid.

Can I build a machine that is guaranteed to always flips a head?

If I take that machine and move it to a different environment, will it always flip heads?

Will that machine be guaranteed to flip a head if I change the parametres indiscriminately?

If I stipulate and control all the parametres prior to flipping the coin, have I not simply begged the question and shown nothing of worth?

The question is whether those parametres determine a specific outcome, but those parametres are not constant, ergo it's not deterministic except within a very defined local remit.

Spearthrower wrote:Your turn Rainbow!

Please insert answer here:

>

<

byofrcs · **#18** by **byofrcs** » Apr 19, 2010 9:31 am

rainbow wrote:From:
creationism/four-power-questins-to-ask-an-evolutionist-t5132-50.html#p135779

What is the Deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions?

The thread this was forked from asked for non-Random. It wasn't very clear what "random" means but I'll assume it is any stochastic memoryless process.

My answer then for non-Random is as before i.e. "Valency or rather the outer electron shell dominates chemical reactions.".

Thus the valency (and the other characteristics that others have identified) makes this non-Random as it makes the configuration a "memory" and so it is predictable and/or repeatable. Mix two chemicals together and they predictably form something else - you don't just end up with some random muck.

Spearthrower · **#19** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 19, 2010 9:52 am

Rainbow wrote:Works like this, sam.
You answer my questions before expecting me to answer yours.
OK?

I've answered your initial questions, I've answered follow up questions..... so, even going according to your stipulated personal rules imposed on others without any authority to do so, I can rightfully expect your answer to these questions now, can't I Rainbow?

Are Chemical Reactions non-Random?
What is the Deterministic force that guides Chemical Reactions?

rainbow · **#20** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2010 10:02 am

Mononoke wrote:Not really. electrons are small, so they exhibit wave charachteristics

OK.
By Heisenberg, we could introduce some uncertainty.
...in principle.