Talk:Clockwork universe

wrong redirection of search "mechanical universe"
I have no idea how redirection is set or changed in Wikipedia. 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 [his theories] 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. [see the book for laymen "Fabric of the Cosmos" which gives an easy to understand description of the issues involved].

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 [whose math is shaky and whose proof is by definition impossible] or rather to simply note that each individual quantum event behaves stochastically [indeterministically] 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 [not so far] 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 [not so far] 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 [AT THE CORE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS] from some other equation rather than assuming it to start; because the wavefunction in itself is manifestly indeterministic. [I don't believe anyone has entirely done this especially as there is no experimental evidence and are mathematically incomplete in themselves.] 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. [plse also excuse the somewhat rambling tempo of this as I have been up all night... thx] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [I added only 3-4 references supporting that because hundreds would have confused the issue]. 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 1735  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 1735  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 1735  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.


 * Clockwork_universe_theory includes an 'intro to christianity, deism, and atheism'. WP:V.
 * The first 4 paragraphs of Clockwork_universe_theory are a personal essay on free will, WP:OR. 2/3 citations are unrelated.
 * Almost all of Clockwork_universe_theory is WP:OR unrelated to the article, and the section probably shouldn't exist:


 * 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, Wikipedia 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.


 * In other words, these are your objections/considerations/whatever to Clockwork universe theory, so they're inadmissible. You'll need to find a WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable Source who's developed the same arguments as you have against "Clockwork universe theory" specifically, before they can be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing gundam (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia. 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. [so it's work in progress when I am not distracted by responding here]  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.

The Greeks didn't have mechanical clocks. Nor did they have the math/science to demonstrate predictibility of mechanical motion. Aristotle didn't believe in scientific inquiry and argued against it (his forte was pure logic). Nor is clockwork really strictly a theory but rather a metaphor/paradigm [generalized belief system] that comes mostly out of 13th century (world machine) and earlier... But it didn't really come into its own until the 17th century and Newtonian mechanics... You can't read Newton out of the clockwork paradigm nor it is possible to overstate the contribution his works made to the concept. JudgementSummary (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.

Wing gundam complains that my "intro" 'includes an 'intro to christianity, deism, and atheism' [see above] which I pointed out was mearly a synopsys of the work of what the 13th century reference claimed. So that apparently was an issut to some... thx JudgementSummary (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.

Issues of mathematical predictability (like a mechanical clock) and Newtonian dynamics which historically was the "theory" everyone referenced and all the religious groups that embraced it as their raison d'etre are important aspects of this subject. JudgementSummary (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC) But I can see the point of more clearly stating the summaries as comming from a specific source and as I said below, think I am making progress when I am not responding to wholesale deletions without specifics.... onwards thanks... also in entropy, the statment that scientists believe the universe did not always exist is almost directly from Hawking so I recommend reading the article first... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * —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 1735  22:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * MachineElf, I understand you do not like the information in this article. It has been sumarily removed and placed in "determinism", nominated for delection with week+ worth of discussion, and then just after that objection was removed within the last several days almost entirely deleted again twice without specifics.   Fortunately, I have a located and expanded on a bunch more references especially in "Free Will" and "Entropy" which I have noted is work-in-progress, which I will update in the next several days to hopefully improve the article.  Thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

--- In the interest of collaboration, which I would honestly welcome, I would like say why I have restored the five sentences that Wing gundam just now deleted for the third time without giving specifics. Anything you could offer rather than summary deletion yet again would be appreciated

1. I restored the wording of the line you chopped short

"Since Sir Isaac Newton unified the description of terrestrial and heavenly motion, scientists originally had good reason to believe that all the constituent parts of the universe were mathematically predictable, at least in principle."

You chopped out the first part of this to give:

"Isaac Newton was a strong proponent, believing that phenomena of any kind should be explained in terms of mechanics" There are three good references under the heading of “Opposition” that indicate Newton did not in fact hold these views and even wrote in opposition to them. But would welcome your thinking as to why you think he actually really did support the paradigm of a clockwork universe.

2. I restored the line you deleted entirely

“This paradigm was not incompatible with the religious view that God the Creator wound up everything in the first place at the Big Bang; and from there the laws of science took hold and have governed most everything since as in Secondary Causation.”

This summary is a key element in the relationship between Newtonian mechanics and the religious views of Newton but perhaps you want a specific reference (?) so I have added one that I think captures the flavor of the religious aspects. I am reluctant to add Augustine/Aquinas as this is not a section on religion but rather on the science/Newtonian Dynamics/physics and I think one sentence is sufficient…

3. I rewrote the phrase at the end which you deleted

“The observation of regular order and consistency in the clockwork universe also tended to discredit the assumption of a Pantheon of Deities with ever changing and contradictory moods and motivations, rather than the regularity possible with a single Deity.”

The last phrase I though nicely complemented the first part of the sentence and gave balance to the whole so I really don’t understand your thinking. The last part is obvious but as you seem to have some bias against any mention of “single Deity” perhaps my adding another “assumption” will help… the result is

“The observation of regular order and consistency in the clockwork universe also tended to discredit the assumption of a Pantheon of Deities with ever changing and contradictory moods and motivations which consideration would naturally be meliorated by assuming only a single Deity.”

4. I rewrote the sentences you mostly deleted

The key precepts of this philosophy were that God was the master-builder, who created the perfect machine and let it run; and that God was the Prime Mover, who brought into being the world in its lawfulness, regularity, and beauty. This paradigm was a core theological assumption in the Western Tradition and remains the teaching of the Catholic Church as well as most Protestant Sects, who believe that a single God is the creator and conservator of natural law.

I don’t think it’s right to summarily remove a succinct synopsis of the concept just referenced without comment. Certainly these are views expressed in the reference given. Do you think the philosophy is something else instead? Would appreciate your reasoning… I reworded the first part to clearly identify that part as a summary.

Since Christianity was rooted in Greek culture and reason, came out of the Jewish tradition, with a creator of everything, from its earliest days, I think the word “remains” is exactly correct. I also recommend a reference I just added on the early history that seems to be a standard textbook on the subject.

5. I restored the lines you deleted entirely

“A variant of this view of God the creator, but who subsequently stands aside from his work and doesn’t get involved with humanity even for the occasional miracle, is called Deism. In this philosophy, God and man still possess free will; but only man injects it into the natural order of things. Deism predates Newton and was accepted by many who supported the “new philosophy”

While atheism especially embraces the determinism implicit in a mechanical world or a clockwork universe, it denies the existence of God the creator and thus requires the universe to be eternal, notably without a beginning. In this sense, the universe must always have existed in some physical form. Atheists would also deny the existence of free will as well as consciousness, claiming they are nothing more than the predetermined and predictable chemical activity of the brain.”

These philosophies were greatly influenced by the clockwork paradigm and it is important to distinguish the various religious assumptions with what are very neutral descriptions…  And the summaries I provided here are well supported by the more extensive Wikipedia pages…   But I think a simple reference here is sufficient with a short summary of their pertinence to a clockwork environment.. JudgementSummary (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

JudgementSummary, cease your WP:disruptive editing. —Wing gundam (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is abundantly clear you are new. Have you noticed that half the links you post are red ? That you couldn't link to my User Talk page? I urge you to take the advice of seasoned editors. These contributions you're making are highly unwelcome.
 * I have given more than what was deserved in the edit summaries. Do you read them? Do you read the hundreds thousands of WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:COATRACK links that are presented to you?
 * 1) The quote given in #Objections specifically supports the statement "Newton was a proponent of the Clockwork universe theory." Newton certainly believed that the force of gravity was divine, but he also certainly believed that his deity's forces were the physical law.
 * 2) “Gravity explains the motions of the planets" is a claim in support of a clockwork universe.
 * 3) "... but it does not explain who set the planets in motion." is a statement about the origin of the universe, of which this article does not concern because it is not the origin of the universe article.
 * 4) The wording of this sentence is very WP:POV. And as has been repeatedly articulated, this article is not a WP:COATRACK for your apologetics.
 * 5) WP:Unsourced/WP:UNDUE/WP:POV. This article is not a WP:COATRACK for your opinion.
 * 6) This article is not a WP:COATRACK for your opinion. We do not want your religious exhortations. "remains" is not correct b/c the clockwork universe theory was obviously not part of these religions' initial tenets. In fact, before the scientific revolution, it was common to think that physical motion occurred (if it did) only when god willed it. This contrasts with the positions and momenta following physical laws.
 * 7) I have explained this multiple times above. Adding more WP:unsourced, WP:POV, and hilariously wrong summaries because you think you're "covering all viewpoints" is not justification for including your WP:COATRACK "intro to christianity."

Sorry about the red... I had tried to highlight my changes to make a discussion easier so you wouldn't delete my stuff for the fifth time. Will try not to do that again....  But you haven't read the book on the "clockwork universe" nor on Newton's life. He was not a proponent of the clockwork universe paradigm and even thought that divine intervention was still required for planetary motion.... Nor is the clockwork universe a theory nor does it much resonate in the "history of science"... if anything it was a crutch then and now for different religious persuations which is another reason to say succintly what different religious bents thought about it... which you again deleted... Please stop the WP:disruptive editing... I would welcome a measured discussion rather than short shift ultimatums  thanks and would still appreciate your input... JudgementSummary (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Removed objections to several sections pending specifics beyond it is horrible and should be deleted entirely...rewrote various other parts to add citations/summaries that had objections...JudgementSummary (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What is left to discuss? You have written 5 offtopic, original essays.
 * 1) From the WP:ANI, you say "The term "clockwork universe" is not a scientific theory at all but rather a paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability based largely on Newton's discoveries which still do pretty good at calculating how a clock works" — false, provide a source defining clockwork universe as "paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability" and the accuracy of our predictions, as your essays focus on this.
 * 2) The only semi-reliable source I could find defines it exactly as I do above:
 * 3) Clearly, this refers to the general concept that the universe obeys a few discrete natural laws. This is explicitly contrasted with the pre-scientific thought: that natural disasters, diseases, and solar eclipses were punishments or omens by god.
 * 4) Clearly, this article is not about how precisely mathematically predictable the universe is. It's not about how deterministic, chaotic systems are tough to simulate on a computer. It's not about how quantum uncertainty makes extremely-small scale predictions imprecise. It's not about how free will could allow non-deterministic dualist forms. There are separate, unrelated articles about all these things.
 * 5) Ergo your definition of clockwork universe is false, and your essays are WP:OFFTOPIC.
 * 6) You have written 5 rambling essays. Half of each essay is an WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:FRINGE discussion of your Essay's topic (Entropy, Free Will, etc). You develop WP:POV arguments not found in the original sources. And these arguments don't even relate to clockwork universe, as explained above.
 * 7) I worry about the uncountable stylistic, wikicode, and editorial errors in your writing.
 * It doesn't matter how many irrelevant sources you add. Your off-topic POV/OR essay won't be allowed.


 * As Machine Elf said above, the problems you created will be surmounted. In all likelihood, your essays will be deleted, and this article will be stubbed. — wing  gundam  13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your quote "follows exact predictable mathematica laws" seems to support my position entirely and certainly doesn't support the case for wholesale deletion at all. Each of the points developed are precisely on point and the sections are manifestly relevant to the paradigm. Scolarship, not diatribe, is what is required. Thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Nor is your case better made by filing every possible notice on the article, on every single section, and at the end of nearly every sentence (nearly 20 in one fell swoop). Nor is it made by twice deleting most of the article without comment (did appreciate your appology on your talk page after I filed a notice of vandalism). Looking at the talk section, you then started deletking the same smaller section in 5-10 edits repeatedly. Your case seems to be "it must go and go quickly", "its horrible and will be all deleted"... maybe it would be better to actually discuss the content because objections are not facts and nor do their number make them more palatable.... Looking forward to a discussion of information I provided in the article, I remain JudgementSummary (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) No it doesn't support your position. Read this until you understand.
 * 2) This quote is not about how precisely mathematically predictable the universe is. It's not about how deterministic, chaotic systems are tough to simulate on a computer. It's not about how quantum uncertainty makes extremely-small scale predictions imprecise. It's not about how free will could allow non-deterministic dualist forms.
 * 3) It only refers to a general concept that the universe obeys a few discrete natural laws. It is explicitly contrasted with the pre-scientific thought: that natural disasters, diseases, and solar eclipses were punishments/omens by god.
 * 4) Ergo clockwork universe is not about how "precisely, numerically, deterministically predictable particles are down to the plank length", as you imply. Furthermore:
 * 5) Limits on the provable completeness of set theory have absolutely nothing do to with clockwork universe.
 * 6) Free will has absolutely nothing to do with clockwork universe. Is clockwork universe a scientific or religious paradigm? If it's scientific, then science operates under a physicalist assumption, and free will doesn't matter. If it's religious, then why the hell are you talking about entropy, string theory, inflatons, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and set theory in a religious article? WP:UNDUE
 * 7) Chaos theory has especially nothing to do with clockwork universe: chaotic systems are deterministic, and rigidly follow their constitutive equations; their numerical quirks don't matter, because the constitutive equations still describe the system which is all clockwork universe theory claims. Notwithstanding this, we may have analytic solutions soon anyway.
 * 8) The probabilities of quantum mechanics have nothing to do with clockwork universe; it actually doesn't matter that probabilities may be nondeterministic. Nature rigidly obeys the probability density functions given by quantum mechanics, which is all clockwork universe theory claims.
 * 9) Entropy has absolutely nothing to do with clockwork universe; in fact, its existence, and the universal validity of the second law, is mastodonic support for the idea that a few short laws govern the whole universe, which is all clockwork universe theory claims.
 * 10) (This isn't relavent your WP:OR issues,) the basal scientific assumption is that the universe is mathematically describable, and this assumption stands confirmed—to a greater degree than ever before.
 * 11) The scholarship you imagine is manifestly forbidden: we do not want your brilliant arguments; we do not want your insights; we don't care how well you source your premises. Your conclusion itself is unsourced synthesis. (It's also offtopic and factually inaccurate, as shown above)
 * 12) Stop complaining about WP:OFFTOPIC// tags. Any editor can express concern over content.
 * 13) Stop lying to yourself, But I never apologized to you.
 * 14) My quote "You're right, section blanking with out Talk isn't good practice...": Generally, section blanking without Talk is bad practice. However, in the case of this article, 90% of it is so bad  as to be considered it looks like WP:Vandalism, permitting summary deletion. But I thought since you were a new editor, you probably didn't realize you were doing something wrong. So I had mercy and have tried and tried to explain it to you. But at this point, I'm beginning to think you will never understand.

You are saying the sections I wrote, months before you saw them, were so bad you had to delete them all without comment when you did see them. And several times after I restored them. So I am guilty of vandalism and am lying to myself... Well maybe, but in any event, I would appreciate your looking at some internet definitions of "Clockwork Universe"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clockwork+universe?r=66 An image of the universe as a clock wound up by God and ticking along with its gears governed by the laws of physics. This idea was very important in the Enlightenment, when scientists realized that Newton's laws of motion, including the law of universal gravitation, could explain the behavior of the solar system.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clockwork_universe A universe in which all of the actions of matter and energy operate as reactions according to predetermined rules set down by a creator, like the movements of a clock.

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=clockwork%20universe http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=clockwork_universe http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/clockwork_universe#word=clockwork%20universe http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clockwork+universe The view that the universe resembles a clock built by God and ticking along according to Newtonian mechanics

I think you might agree that predictability and maybe the math of Newtonian dynamics were at least somehow related to the subject. Just a thought... In any event the subject is at least an exciting on,e especially given all the new discoveries I summarized in my sections relating to Newton and predictability,  thanks...... JudgementSummary (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wing gundam: you reframed my post just above.... would ask you not do that thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Defining clockwork universe
There's no need for melodrama. - Yet you did delete most of it twice without comment as you said on your user talk pageUser Talk:wing gundam.JudgementSummary (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've been writing deletable sections for several months. Sorry.
 * "...delete them all without comment when you did see them." — This is complete bollocks. I posted to here a day before, and I removed just three of your POV/OR sections. And did you read the edit summaries? I commented that your sections were WP:OFFTOPIC WP:COATRACKS.
 * Bro. I said "You're right, section blanking with out Talk isn't good practice." I didn't say I deleted your essay; I didn't say I did so twice. I didn't say I did so without comment. I stated a truth: one generally shouldn't section blank without Talk.
 * And again, I posted on this Talk a day before I edited. And I summarized every edit.— wing  gundam  17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

-
 * "internet definitions of Clockwork Universe — This is the problem. Of the 6 sources you threw at me, one is reliable: The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
 * I doubt RhymeZone, Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary, or Vocabulary.com will ever be considered reliable sources.
 * But nonetheless, from "An image of the universe as a clock wound up by God and ticking along with its gears governed by the laws of physics"
 * "gears governed by the laws of physics" — this concept says that laws of physics exist, and govern the universe. It says nothing about whether we can numerically simulate them. It says nothing about whether these laws are probabilistic. It simply says these laws exist.
 * This agrees with my quote (above), which describes a paradigm shift where natural laws overtake superstition in our understanding of the physical.
 * For example, rocks sink in water because of buoyant forces, not because "god intended them to sink"
 * For example, hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure, not by gay marriage.
 * For example, the half-life of a neutron is 881.5s because of the Lagrangian of the Standard Model, not because God hates neutrons.

But yeah, it's definitely an interesting subject. Especially the search for the Theory of Everything. I wish the determinism article said more about quantum mechanics. It only has one section, and it's pretty badly written. Perhaps some of you "Considerations due to Quantum Mechanics" could be ported there? — wing  gundam  10:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, a 100 word discussion on how falling bodies and planetary motion were finally understood to be consequences of Newton's laws of motion is definitely apropos.
 * A 1000 word discussion on whether quantum mechanics is deterministic is horrendously WP:OFFTOPIC.
 * However all of these suggest this is a minor topic. It certainly doesn't merit 4000 words of discussion about entropy, string theory, inflatons, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and set theory.


 * JudgementSummary, I'm quite persuaded by your dictionary quotes that the strong analogy can be distinguished from general mechanism by the metaphor of God's wind-up (no muss, no fuss; all-knowing/all-swerving; Platonic/Secondary initial conditions).
 * WP:SURPRISE, by the principle of least astonishment, something like a definition should appear in the first paragraph. Readers who are lead to believe they're about to enjoy a physics or history of science article, will be alarmed by the casual intercourse with religious conjecture in the next paragraph:
 * That's no way to introduce the metaphor of a clockmaker winding the clock. Systems Theory flashback? Not only does the "Big Bang" bear no resemblance to the analogy, it's an anachronism:
 * That's no way to introduce the metaphor of a clockmaker winding the clock. Systems Theory flashback? Not only does the "Big Bang" bear no resemblance to the analogy, it's an anachronism:


 * from the ancient machina mundi... "The metaphor of the clockwork universe played a central role in the discussions of the Scientific Revolution at its height. Leading champions were René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; the chief adversary was Isaac Newton. After Newton, the use of the metaphor declined, rapidly in England, more gradually on the Continent."
 * late 13th century — mechanical clock invented
 * ca. 1350 — Nicole Oresme introduced the clockwork universe analogy, implying the Clockmaker and hence, the argument from design (see Teleological argument)...
 * All clocks are made by a maker (not by chance);
 * The universe is a clock;
 * Therefore, the universe was made by a maker. (God)


 * mid 17th to 18th century — discussed by natural philosophers "with great variety and frequency. Early champions of the new scientific outlook had employed the clock metaphor sparingly; not only had any belief in the physical reality of a clockwork universe become untenable long before, but it was also one of the chief priorities of the movement to create a new literary style of scientific discourse, characterized as a 'close, naked, natural way of speaking,' rejecting the use of metaphor and other rhetorical devices."
 * 1596-1650 — René Descartes: described the "visible world in general as if it were only a machine in which there is nothing to consider but the shapes and movements of its parts."
 * 1627-1691 — Robert Boyle "compared the method of the modern natural philosopher with that of the clockmaker taking apart a defective clock, and he demanded the same logical stringency of a scientific deduction as that seen in the cause-and-effect relationship among the parts of a watch. But he rejected, as did most of his compatriots, the theory of animal automatism. Boyle’s references to the argument from design, which recur in his writings throughout his career, undergo a gradual shift in emphasis. This argument, it was recognized, not only demonstrated the existence of God, it also defined his essential characteristics. Initially, Boyle had repeated the conventional argument, that the Creation did not require subsequent divine intervention because it was perfect: an omniscient Creator could not make an imperfect work. This argument, however, implied that there was no further need for the Creator: God would become a passive bystander, of limited power, omniscient but not omnipotent. An omnipotent God, conversely, could not be omniscient, because a creation that required continued maintenance by its maker had to be faulty. God could not he both, all—wise and all—powerful. A theological debate arose whether supreme wisdom or supreme power was God’s chief characteristic, with the opposing camps known as intellectualists and voluntarists, a debate equivalent to that over determinism versus free will. While Continental philosophers gravitated to the intellectualist position, in Britain a voluntarist consensus soon emerged to which Boyle adjusted his position, eventually leaving the clock image out of his formulation of the argument from design."
 * 1646-1716 — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz "whose philosophy was deeply rooted in determinism, employed metaphors of clock and automaton frequently. His strong commitment to the argument from design in its intellectualist form brought him into conflict with Newton, a passionate voluntarist. Newton had frequently referred to the design argument but never mentioned the image of the clock. In 1715 Leibniz sent to his friend the princess of Wales a list of his objections to Newton’s philosophy. The letter reached Samuel Clarke (1675—1729), who replied on behalf of Newton, his friend and mentor. The ensuing correspondence has become famous as the Leibniz-Clarke debate. In his first letter, Leibniz attacked Newton’s voluntarism by outlining his own intellectualist position in terms of the classical formulation of the design argument. Clarke bluntly rejected the analogy. Speaking of clockmakers, he stated: 'with regard to God, the case is quite different,' and he concluded that 'the notion of the world’s being a great machine, going on without the interposition of God,... is the notion of materialism and fate.' Leibniz let this stand without objection in his subsequent letters; his death terminated the debate. In Britain, this certified the death of the clockwork-universe analogy. On the Continent, the idea survived in the philosophy of Leibniz’s disciple Christian Wolff but quickly lost all significance in the following decades."


 * JudgementSummary, take a look at Talk:Teleological argument, what I WP:DONTLIKE is seeing someone do themselves a disservice. If you'd be willing to set aside the anachronism sections: Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Entropy, etc... I'd be willing to help you work out lucid and more compelling presentations of the payload, in their proper historical context.—Machine Elf 1735  21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Move Request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork universe theory → Clockwork universe – Everyone agrees the WP:TITLE should be "clockwork universe". Furthermore, if the article were moved there, the remaining "clockwork universe theory" redirect could then be easily changed to point at Newton's theory of gravity, per WP:PRIMARY. Machine Elf 1735  07:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork universe is a better description of the subject. The pointer for 'Clockwork universe theory' should redirect to 'Clockwork universe'.JudgementSummary (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Then perhaps a two phased approach would be best but I'm surprised... Why? As you keep saying, it's not a theory.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork universe is a better description... but all the variants of the phrase, to include Clockwork Universe Theory, should point to the new description... and you keep switching sides... If you now support "theory" why do you want the name changed? Just a thought. JudgementSummary (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support moving per above. —<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  13:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Per the AfD discussion, I support the move. No opinion on the redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, support the move. And the redirect. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move and then it needs drastic editing. Its a loose collection of original research, synthesis and reads like a poorly constructed high school essay  Snowded  TALK 11:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move without redirect. A redirect at Clockwork universe paradigm seems appropriate, but there's no "theory" here, not even a philosophical theory.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So delete "theory"?—<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  18:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes
OK it looks like there are a clear majority of editors who think this is all too much. I've radically reduced that material and suggest the focus now is on describing what the term means, rather than writing extended essays about its implications for free will and the like. Better a stub than an extended and speculative essay Snowded  TALK 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Snowded — I'm not sure what my last edit did exactly; I think we had an edit conflict. I meant to remove one line of blankspace and ended up somehow adding a whole chunk of info. I've undone my own edit, but if you could review and make sure I haven't accidentally trampled all over what you've done, I'd appreciate it. Cheers –  Richard  BB  16:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think its OK. The intent is get a partial greenfield - all too messy before, too much material, too hard to do anything other than drastic changes.  If we get the core description right and referenced then we can look at possibly adding back aspects of the other material  Snowded  TALK 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded, I thee bestow The Kitten of Boldness! —<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a badge for that I would welcome it, if not you should create one! Snowded  TALK 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Smowded: You just removed 95% of the entire article and I just saw it... reverting to the original before I started editing... everything remaining on the article is what I put in and I guess I will rewrite it and add it back in one section at a time...  not like deleting most everything in one fell swoop but it will have to do thanks..JudgementSummary (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use colons to indent your comments. Your material was a personal essay, synthesis and OR.  Your latest additions follow the same style.  I strongly suggest you read up on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS before you make changes and ideally discuss them here first.  If you check you are in a minority of one on these changes with several experienced editors trying to tell you the same thing.   Snowded  TALK 06:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Snowded: would like to see a point by point discussion of the material you removed... I have actually removed only my contributions and replaced the originals... Makes it easier for me to rewrite them... and would still like to see a point by point discussion of the 95% of the article you just removed... which was entirely my effort...  now onwards to rewrite... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You might want to create a sandpit to draft your proposed changes and then link here so they can be discussed. It doesn't matter who writes material it has to be properly referenced and follow the rules.   I strongly suggest you get agreement on the talk page to major changes as you have little or no support from other editors.  You also do not seem to be taking on board the point that this is not a place for editors essays  Snowded  TALK 06:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * JudgementSummary, replacing old content isn't the point. POV is POV, regardless of whether it was there before you. Furthermore since you don't understand why/that your work was a POV/OR/SYN essay, I highly advise you to let an experienced editor vet any changes you want to make. I've created your sandbox for you at User:JudgementSummary/sandbox. Please make any changes here, so that other older editors can review your work. —<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  12:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Relentless
Wing Gundam, if I WP:AGF that you've done what your edit summary says you did:


 * revision 541249116 by Machine Elf 1735)''

I shouldn't have to go back and make sure you weren't trying to pull a fast one... as evidenced by the extra line breaks that pushed it below the fold. There are much better WP:RS available, why bilk the back cover of a tawdry non-academic "free-for-all of ideas in a character-rich, historical narrative" for cheep jabs?


 * There was an inherent contradiction in the views of some 17th-century thinkers, who believed the universe ran like clockwork, according to natural law, yet also in a God who interfered with the world to perform miracles and punish sinners.&lt;ref name=Dolnick&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;

"In a world of chaos and disease, one group of driven, idiosyncratic geniuses envisioned a universe that ran like clockwork. They were the Royal Society, the men who made the modern world..." miraculously! No surprise the marketing blurb is less than scholarly, self-consistent or forthcoming about what that "inherent contradiction" might be...—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only thing that's relentless is your paranoia. The text is a WP:RS (✓). The text discusses clockwork universe (WP:V ✓). The text gives (p.18) two concomitant opinions of 17c thinkers on clockwork universe (✓). The text states these opinions are contradictory (✓). Legitimate article content (✓). WP:PRESERVE if you have a better source. —<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  00:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question, then. Contradictory in what sense? In the sense of person A contradicts person B, or contradictory in the sense of person A contradicts themself, and person B separately contradicts themself? If the former, them this differs not at all from any theological view with multiple interpretations, for theism itself is madly contradictory in this fashion. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The author explicitly states the latter sense, that their views were self-contradictory. Theism is certainly madly contradictory. —<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  06:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool it please and read up on WP:NPA. calling another editor paranoid fails that policy.  I've removed it for the moment for the reasons stated in the edit summary.  Open to you making a case, but if so can we have the exact quotation please Snowded  TALK 05:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * lol@that. Machine Elf stated "too easy to WP:AGF, I almost forgot Wing gundam's edit summaries can't be trusted and sure enough, that was no revert: verifying..." Vilifying my edit summaries as deliberately misleading is either paranoid or a personal attack. The quote is in the context of a discussion of Newton et al.'s obsession with determining the year of the apocalypse, which the author several times deems incompatible with their scientific work:


 * —<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  06:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs as they say do not make a right. but yes the NPA point applies to both. On the content issue I'm really not sure that its relevant.  its one authors's view and stated as an opinion.  The final sentence could be included as a quote if people feel strongly  Snowded  TALK 06:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As they say, you're right. I think the point that the historical scientists concerned with clockwork universe simultaneously held interventionist views is notable enough to be included.—<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  06:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to some inclusion, but the quote is about "Every Era" so to isolate one reference to the Baroque is to use it out of context. I'm not sure it is a contradiction either by the way if God created the clock and all that.   Maybe "Reconciliation of an interventionist God with a clockwork universe appears not to be have been a contradiction for scientists at the time" would be supported by the quote.  Snowded  TALK 11:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * British voluntarists may well have abandoned the analogy for exactly that reason, but it was not a problem for intellectualists on the Continent, who were committed to determinism and continued to embrace the analogy.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  19:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If he were not merely granting your premise for purposes of reductio ad absurdum, I'd ask him to retract the accusation that I committed a personal attack against you. It's a plain fact that your edit summary was misleading and your history of that inappropriate behavior is entirely relevant. You've provided no excuse for the misleading edit summary and none for the extraneous line breaks that further obscured your new edit by pushing it below the fold.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  19:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Machine Elf, in my experience you live on personal attacks. Need I direct attention to your excoriating assaults of User:Eebster the Great? You accused him of returning to "...vomit lies..." — while hilarious, that's the most insulting thing I've read in a while. Furthermore understand this: you don't WP:OWN this article; you're not owed an explanation of every minute change. Neither is obsessing over accidental newlines anything but paranoid. Keep up the attacks and possessiveness, and there'll be an ANI/ArbCom with your name on it soon.—<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing   gundam  02:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Feeling a bit peckish? Suggesting that I live on personal attacks is a rather deliberate, if ineffectual, personal attack. As I've said, I had hoped you regretted endorsing that screed but I'll have to ask you to stop needlessly promulgating it. Accusing me of WP:OWN is a red herring. Per WP:BRD, you are expected to discuss the merits of your changes rather than simply reverting... time and time again. While the fact that your edit summary was indeed misleading tends to suggest prudence on my part, as opposed to "paranoia", that in no way excuses your counter-accusation or misleading edit summary. I've asked you politely to keep the personal attacks out of section headers—just keep my name out of your section headers, period. It's as simple as that. You're at liberty to avail yourself of ANI/ArbCom, on your own behalf or Eebster's, with whom you've "collaborated", so to speak.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  04:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of strong feeling on the content issue, quoting that last sentence from the admitted "free for all...historical narrative" lumps together the entire 17th century: "" While it remains unclear what "" might have to do with it, it still wrongly implies that a combination of strict determinism with "" enjoyed universal acceptance. Of course, whether or not any pre-deterministic philosophy could possibly be self-consistent shouldn't be the question here, (i.e. whether some "inherent contradiction" must lurk in Deism)... but that's not at the expense of forgetting those 17th century pre-deterministic philosophies that actually sought to eliminate or otherwise get around the problem of God's supernatural reach.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  22:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving on (Chaos theory)
This article was terrifying WP:POV essay. It was gutted by us and left to die. And that's a Good Thing. But hopefully the time has come to grow it anew. I think there's some room for legitimate expansion.

I've recently come across several textbooks on chaos theory (e.g. Tamas Tel's, Edward Ott's) which make reference the former perception of (and the lack of) a "clockwork universe", in the context of the divergence of numerical solutions to classical, dynamical systems that exhibit chaos. In addition, some discuss how, for classical systems exhibiting chaos (like the three-body problem), the corresponding quantum systems do not exhibit chaos. Where developments are tied to a clockwork universe, such material may be appropriate for inclusion.

I'm still Wiki-exhausted from fighting for and pushing through the blanking of this article, so I'm loath to get involved again. I can review additions for technical correctness if needed, but someone should pursue these leads and summarize the relavent literature (if any), perhaps under the heading "In modern physics".—<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif;"> wing  gundam  09:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In the history of science? Really?
Note sure if I'm being overly nit-picky, but Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) the article starts with "In the history of science, the clockwork universe compares ...", but its not an idea of the history of science. Perhaps just removing the hyperlink would do. It is more closely aligned to a philosophy of doing science (or understanding the works of God). How about
 * "In the development of science, the clockwork universe was an idea that compared ..."
 * Or use "metaphor" rather than "idea". Should we place article into Category:Metaphors referring to objects?
 * 1) The lead makes it definitionally the same as a mechanical universe, though the fact that is was started by the grand watchmaker is central to the analogy and is idly mentioned in text later.