EPTI doubt it's particularly important to think too hard about these sorta things unless it's your field of study. Maybe a little fun. For instance, I had a random thought about the nature of dark matter/energy that I don't have the background in physics/mathematics to explore... so instead I'm going to write a sci fi story where that original thought (along with some other sci fi conventions) drives the plot. Fun stuff, but not terribly important.
Something's been bothering me (physics related) - Page 2
| Blogs > Stripe |
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
I doubt it's particularly important to think too hard about these sorta things unless it's your field of study. Maybe a little fun. For instance, I had a random thought about the nature of dark matter/energy that I don't have the background in physics/mathematics to explore... so instead I'm going to write a sci fi story where that original thought (along with some other sci fi conventions) drives the plot. Fun stuff, but not terribly important. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
 I believe in determinism. I can cope with the idea that what we abstractly call a free will can in absolute sense be completely predicted. It can only be predicted if you know the entirety of the parameters that make up the process of decision making, which I would think is about the entire galaxy (since even Jupiter for example has a tiny tiny tiny influence due to gravity on the protons in my brain). Edit: Tadzio, I don't 100% get tring theory, but the idea that there are a bunch of universes in a multiverse, that doesn't mean that you as a person can travel between them, does it? You are stuck in the universe where you are, so you can predict everything what is going to happen. In another universe it might happen differently, but then I believe that other universe can at the point of time of that event not be exactly the same. | ||
|
DexterHGTourney
United States17 Posts
Contrary to what many are saying here, Determinism is not a fact. Indeed, it is a theory, as much as Free Will is. It is up to you to come to your own conclusions by reading and studying Philosophy. Just be aware, the consequences of each Philosophy. Myself I am not a Determinist. Personally, I think far too many people today are abandoning Philosophy and transposing Science in its place, but Science cannot answer these questions. Any Scientists who tells you they can are nothing more than proverbial Astrologers. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
But quantum mechanics has a probabilistic nature... I think there is a causal element in a universe, but thing are set in stone at some point. I don't know if science has "discovered" any Quantum effects occurring within the brain, but I know that there were some theories. I'm not really up to date on it though ^^ | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
We're quite far from that happening, though. And, of course, if string theory is true, a large majority of our predictions would occur in non-detectable universes. | ||
|
RoTaNiMoD
United States558 Posts
However, I believe free will does exist in a real sense -- ie, all interactions are not deterministic. I used to believe in your physics-based model, that all existence really is, is particles interacting, and if we could chart all particles' masses and velocities and what-have-you that we could determine the future of everything. Also, that everything up to this point had been predetermined in a similar manner. This scenario holds true if all particle interactions have definite outcomes, but the indication is that they do not. Instead of a and b interacting to produce result c, it has been shown there are some interactions where a and b interact to produce c some % of the time, and d some % of the time. And there is no way of knowing which one it will be until it happens. Ergo, no determinism. My first point still holds though, even if you truly believe everything were predetermined, and even if it really were, it wouldn't be worth a damn because your end perception doesn't feel that way. | ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
That's awesome. I feel so much less guilty now thanks to physics. | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
| ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On April 19 2010 16:12 RoTaNiMoD wrote: However, I believe free will does exist in a real sense -- ie, all interactions are not deterministic. I used to believe in your physics-based model, that all existence really is, is particles interacting, and if we could chart all particles' masses and velocities and what-have-you that we could determine the future of everything. Also, that everything up to this point had been predetermined in a similar manner. This scenario holds true if all particle interactions have definite outcomes, but the indication is that they do not. Instead of a and b interacting to produce result c, it has been shown there are some interactions where a and b interact to produce c some % of the time, and d some % of the time. And there is no way of knowing which one it will be until it happens. Ergo, no determinism. You should tone down that conclusion just a tad there... as a determinist I can't prove my point by your example. But you can't prove your point either. You have to prove that no other factors than the a and b that you know, are involved in the interaction. Proving the absence of something unknown is rather difficult, but without it, you can not be certain. When there is a 100% complete physics model, I guess then we can say with certain probability, that your experiment stands. Otherwise, as soon as the presence of a factor other than the known a and b are discovered, it is no longer a proof against determinism. | ||
|
Ota Solgryn
Denmark2011 Posts
Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined. | ||
|
TheLardyGooser
Canada145 Posts
(or at least there is a very strong case to support such a conclusion) To see how this is the case, its easiest to look first at as an ad reductio argument of whether or not free-will and INdeterminism can be compatible. (Gonna play this proof fast & loose, its 4:30am and I am writing a paper on analytic philosophy not metaphysics) 1) If you have Free-Will do you control your actions? (Yes, supposedly as it is typically defined as having the choice of "could have done otherwise") 2) If you control your actions, are you the necessary & sufficient cause of those actions? (Yes, your decision to do X causes X, X wouldn't happen if you didn't will X) 3) If you were the cause of X, and you willing X is necessary for X to happen, then what produced that will? 4) If determinism is false, then nothing caused X and X was a completely spontaneous occurrence 5) If X was spontaneous action, then there is no way to say that it was in any way willed by you (free yes, but no will involved, you have no control) 6) Therefore assuming free-will and indeterminism arrives at a contradiction While this doesn't quite get you to full compatibilitism, I am too tired to prove the other half of the problem. (This far at least shows it as a distinct possibility, but assuming it to be true from here is full of all kinds trouble) Check out R. E. Hobart, and maybe a little bit of Harry Frankfurt if you're curious.... | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On April 19 2010 17:40 Ota Solgryn wrote: The set of rules that have been made by man that "governs" the events throughout universe history are pretty lacking. Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined. Randomness to the human mind is the lack of knowledge on the cause of the observed. (In my opinion) Take a dice roll. Build a device that will throw a device in the exact same way every time, and keep obvious factors like wind and shocks out of the experiment. The dice should roll the same side up. (Depending on how well you can exterminate unknown factors.) A dice is nice and coarse for this to work. Predicting the pattern of waves of the sea as they crash on the shores, that's a rather more difficult task. (edit typo) | ||
|
Ota Solgryn
Denmark2011 Posts
On April 19 2010 17:47 Badjas wrote: Randomness to the human mind is the lack of knowledge on the cause of the observed. (In my opinion) Take a dice roll. Build a device that will throw a device in the exact same way every time, and keep obvious factors like wind and shocks out of the experiment. The dice should roll the same side up. (Depending on how well you can exterminate unknown factors.) A dice is nice and coarse for this to work. Predicting the pattern of waves of the sea as they crash on the shores, that's a rather more difficult task. (edit typo) No. Your example with the dice is just an example of where you make the system simple enough so that the classic newtonian rules of physics apply, which are very simple rules that are very easy to predict stuff from, if the system actually follows these rules. If the system gets more complex and/or at the atomic level the newtonian physics no longer apply. The OP talked about how his decision was predetermined because particles throughout time have been interacting in such a way that he finally made a 9 pool. In such a system that works at an atomic level there is no way of predicting the outcome because there is randomness in the universe (most scientists agree on this). Why is it random? The accepted physics rules states that all matter is particles if you look at them in the past, i.e. they can be said to have this and that size, be at this and that position with this and that speed/velocity. On the contrary all matter consists of waves in the future, i.e. they do not have a well defined position, size or velocity, they do however have some sort confined space in which they can are, so it is possible to predict their position, but not precisely. This is also why a simple or well defined system in which the waves are within a very small space, can be predicted to some degree, which is the case with the dices. Finally the present is then the strange system where we have a particle/wave duallity which which is hard to comprehend. The string theory pretty much states the same things just in different ways. The reason why these theories have not revolutionized the scientific world is because these theories run in to problems, albeit different from the kvantum mechanics, but just as severe when trying to calculate and predict physical systems on the atomic level. | ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
| ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
| ||
|
GrayArea
United States872 Posts
| ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On April 19 2010 19:42 GrayArea wrote: You stretch the argument too far. Physics and scientific laws provide the rules or boundaries for what you can do, they don't dictate what you actually do. For example, if you look at basketball, the scientific laws are like the rules. You can't travel, you can't go outside the lines, you can't double dribble etc. That doesn't mean that those rules also dictate whether a player is going to pass or shoot, go for a layup or jump shot, fake and then shoot etc. That decision is up to the person. What we do know is that no matter what decision the player does make, he is not going to travel, step outside the lines, or break other rules. can you also walk on water at will | ||
|
GrayArea
United States872 Posts
On April 19 2010 19:22 KurtistheTurtle wrote: I often duck to avoid imaginary snipers aiming at me. I also twitch randomly and in ways I don't expect until that moment to prove to myself I have free will. Wow, I thought I was the only person who did weird things like this haha!!! I totally do this too. I always challenge myself do things "out of the norm" just to show that I have free will and CAN do it if I WANT to do it. Like if I drop a tiny piece of paper on the floor somewhere and it doesn't even matter if I leave it there or pick it up (and it's easier to just leave it there and keep walking), I will stop, go out of my way to turn around and go pick up that paper, and then put it in the trash or wherever. Just to show that I can do it if I want to. lol | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On April 19 2010 18:36 Ota Solgryn wrote: No. Your example with the dice is just an example of where you make the system simple enough so that the classic newtonian rules of physics apply, which are very simple rules that are very easy to predict stuff from, if the system actually follows these rules. If the system gets more complex and/or at the atomic level the newtonian physics no longer apply. The OP talked about how his decision was predetermined because particles throughout time have been interacting in such a way that he finally made a 9 pool. In such a system that works at an atomic level there is no way of predicting the outcome because there is randomness in the universe (most scientists agree on this). Why is it random? The accepted physics rules states that all matter is particles if you look at them in the past, i.e. they can be said to have this and that size, be at this and that position with this and that speed/velocity. On the contrary all matter consists of waves in the future, i.e. they do not have a well defined position, size or velocity, they do however have some sort confined space in which they can are, so it is possible to predict their position, but not precisely. This is also why a simple or well defined system in which the waves are within a very small space, can be predicted to some degree, which is the case with the dices. Finally the present is then the strange system where we have a particle/wave duallity which which is hard to comprehend. The string theory pretty much states the same things just in different ways. The reason why these theories have not revolutionized the scientific world is because these theories run in to problems, albeit different from the kvantum mechanics, but just as severe when trying to calculate and predict physical systems on the atomic level. The only beef I have with what you write, is that you speak as if what you are saying is the truth. Also, [citation needed] on the 'most scientists agree' part. What you say about the dice example, I agree with. It is the exact reason I brought it up. In my belief, it has all to do with the amount of knowledge of a system. (And I do not claim that we will ever know all about the universe.) Knowledge is of course only meaningful in the context of an (human) observer and it is the human observer which has the concept of randomness (and /perhaps/ it is a universal property in a certain way). | ||
|
GrayArea
United States872 Posts
walking on water defies physics, and you can't break the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy go there edit: I actually don't even know why you even asked that question seeing as it has nothing to do with what I just said. Did you misquote or are you trolling? Or maybe you didn't get what I was saying? o.O | ||
| ||
