|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 06 2012 09:53 Tachyon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 09:48 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:47 Tachyon wrote:On March 06 2012 09:43 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote:
To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random... They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events??? I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it... JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring. So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all. Do you honestly believe that a thunderstorm is being determined according to random quantum behavior? Seriously? Why are you so binary in your way of thinking? Quantum events contribute to events on the molecular level, and those in turn contribute to macroscopic events. This doesn't mean that ONE PARTICULAR QUANTUM EVENT caused a lightning storm, because there are so insanely many instances involved. Seperate stochastic events are magnified and sometimes cause significant differences on molecular levels. You can't argue that what is too small to see under a microscope can't influence events we can actually observe.
What you are telling me is that determinism doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. Let's just say my opinions differ...
On March 06 2012 09:49 HailPlays wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 09:36 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:25 mcc wrote:On March 06 2012 08:32 Anubis390 wrote:On March 06 2012 07:59 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote:
I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate. I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition. Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false. The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is. And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable. See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change. Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesisAlso note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense. Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit". Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense. Another good post. I especially liked the first line, people often do not consider the consequences of evolution regarding how we are capable of viewing or understanding the world. There is a real problem with people rejecting an idea simply because it doesn't "feel" right, because it makes them uncomfortable. Truth is not dictated by human desire. In fact, if anything, I would say the desire for something to be true could be an argument AGAINST it's being true. But that's a completely different issue... Truth is also not dictated by tradition. Just because you've believed something your whole life, doesn't mean it is true. It is very hard to hear a radical idea and accept it with an open-mind, because we are very wary of change or radical ideas. You have to consciously guard against bias or prejudice towards an idea if you want to reach the truth. You either strive to think scientifically or you don't. If you don't think scientifically, and don't have any desire to, then don't bother coming up with flimsy justifications or rationalizations for your beliefs. Just be honest and say "this set of beliefs helps me live my life, and I will embrace them." You speak of being open-minded and guarding against prejudice in some grand quest for truth, and then you equate truth to scientific conclusions in the very next paragraph. As a philosophy student I have found, quite ironically, that science students are among the most stubborn and least receptive when it comes to open-mindedness and openness to "radical ideas" that do not sit well with their scientific outlook. Did you ever open your mind enough to ask yourself what exactly you mean by truth, and how your scientific method could possibly get at it?
Scientists make progress in explaining the world according to the scientific method and using empirical evidence.
Philosophy students run themselves in illogical psychological circles using concepts which had no basis from the very beginning, and arrive at no conclusions while the world is being explained around them by scientists.
Sorry, I don't believe in granting an existence to things we invent in the human mind, and then debating about what our own mind meant when we created them, so I have some bias against so-called "philosophy."  When I speak of "truth," you must understand I am using a very plebeian, unsophisticated, perhaps "common sense" version of the term.
|
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote:
is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
This is an interesting, but I think ultimately flawed argument that calls for a distinction I believe.
I haven't heard it made in any of the philosophy I've read, nor in the 1 lecture class I took, but would love some authors to seek if anybody has heard anything resembling the idea, which is basically discerning the difference between hard determinism and a perception of free will.
Which is to say - we perceive free will because we make decisions in the first person perspective. What decisions we make, how we react to anything may very well be pre-determined, but we experience the process of making that choice first hand. We may or may not actually have a freedom of will, and we may never know, as our will is also defined in the massive cause and effect chain that is existence as we know it.
(I am on this website replying to this post because I got interested in eSports and Starcraft, I got interested in eSports and Starcraft because... ... ...My parents got together and had a child because... ... ...The Earth cooled and... ... ...The big bang.)
The only definition of God that I have found hard to disagree with was the use of it as the title of the first cause in that chain. My philosophy teacher said that whether or not it was sentient, or whether we believe in a deity etc. that by calling the first cause 'God' that God exists. Which, I think is fine if you recognize it as applying a term to something you don't have a better term for, I still don't agree with most modernly defined deities etc.
So - why did you move your leg? Your perceived free will dictates that you did so because you wanted to. But why did you want to? Was it your pre-conditioning, which is based on your history, upbringing, or genetic structure? Whether we actually have free will or not is somewhat meaningless. I personally think we lack free will, but for all intents and purposes we might as well have it, because our will is our will regardless of an overarching definition of freedom.
|
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes. Try to read it and give it a shot. There are some things that have to be declared first, and that is that there is nothing truly random in the universe, including electron probabilities, antiparticle existence, etc quantum etc.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
|
I consider this dilemma the same way I consider solipsism and brain in a vat dilemma.
Do I have free will. Yes
Do I truly have free will. Doesn't matter.
|
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote:
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Directly counter to your postulation.
On March 06 2012 10:01 NIJ wrote:
I consider this dilemma the same way I consider solipsism and brain in a vat dilemma.
Do I have free will. Yes
Do I truly have free will. Doesn't matter.
I love this answer. Exactly how I think about a lot of things that science hasn't progressed far enough to uncover the answers to.
|
So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
|
free will seems to be the product of animallike instincts (causal stimuli) and relationing cognitve processes. its the deterministic linkage of animallike standardisation and human cognitive flexibility
|
On March 06 2012 10:01 NIJ wrote:
I consider this dilemma the same way I consider solipsism and brain in a vat dilemma.
Do I have free will. Yes
Do I truly have free will. Doesn't matter.
How can it not matter? The opinions you hold will influence your behavior.
On March 06 2012 10:03 BillClinton wrote:
free will seems to be the product of animallike instincts (causal stimuli) and relationing cognitve processes. its the deterministic linkage of animallike standardisation and human cognitive flexibility
Your so-called "human cognitive flexibility" cannot violate the laws of nature which dictate the behavior of chemicals within the brain.
|
On March 06 2012 10:03 travis wrote:
So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
Quantum events affect the chemical composition of things, i.e., our brains, which results in slightly different equilibrium of reactions and such, which could affect decision making.
|
On March 06 2012 10:02 UmiNotsuki wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote:
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism. Heisenberg Uncertainty PrincipleDirectly counter to your postulation.
I know it may be impossible for us as actors in the universe to calculate both the energy and position of things. But I'm proposing that there is an actor, perhaps adjacent to our universe that could. I know that sounds weird but if it's possible to calculate these, would the rest of my theory be possible as well?
|
On March 06 2012 09:59 Flanlord wrote:
I haven't heard it made in any of the philosophy I've read, nor in the 1 lecture class I took, but would love some authors to seek if anybody has heard anything resembling the idea, which is basically discerning the difference between hard determinism and a perception of free will.
Which is to say - we perceive free will because we make decisions in the first person perspective. What decisions we make, how we react to anything may very well be pre-determined, but we experience the process of making that choice first hand. We may or may not actually have a freedom of will, and we may never know, as our will is also defined in the massive cause and effect chain that is existence as we know it.
...
So - why did you move your leg? Your perceived free will dictates that you did so because you wanted to. But why did you want to? Was it your pre-conditioning, which is based on your history, upbringing, or genetic structure? Whether we actually have free will or not is somewhat meaningless. I personally think we lack free will, but for all intents and purposes we might as well have it, because our will is our will regardless of an overarching definition of freedom.
I just said this on the last page :D
|
On March 06 2012 10:05 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:02 UmiNotsuki wrote:On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote:
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism. Heisenberg Uncertainty PrincipleDirectly counter to your postulation. I know it may be impossible for us as actors in the universe to calculate both the energy and position of things. But I'm proposing that there is an actor, perhaps adjacent to our universe that could. I know that sounds weird but if it's possible to calculate these, would the rest of my theory be possible as well?
This isn't about the technology we have access to. It is actually theoretically impossible to do it, without breaking some physical law. So if you're proposing some entity with the ability to break physical laws, then perhaps it could be true, but if we can assume that's true then all of science, logic, and reason becomes invalid.
The rest of your theory sounds a little hair-brained to me, but if you had the computational power to do it... I suppose it's possible.
|
On March 05 2012 22:46 CyDe wrote:
Uh oh, this thread looks like it starting to descend into attacks and one liners.
To try and bring it back onto a discussion, I'm going to pose the question about randomness in quantum mechanics.
So I don't know anything about this, but let's just take an atom's electrons for example. One could say that the location of the electrons is random, but because it is within a certain field, doesn't that mean that they are in a 'controlled random'? The electrons cannot just fly out to any random point in the universe, they are bound by certain restrictions, which really doesn't make them random in a true (I use that word non-literally) sense.
Could someone explain this in the quantum mechanics perspective? Because from what I would imagine it is fairly similar.
Yes pretty much - you can confine it to within a space, but the behavior within that space is still perfectly random. There is still actually a vanishingly small chance for the electron to escape your confinement - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
However, if your confinement is large enough, you might have to wait longer than the age of the universe to have a chance of seeing it happen...
|
On March 06 2012 10:04 UmiNotsuki wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:03 travis wrote:
So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how? Quantum events affect the chemical composition of things, i.e., our brains, which results in slightly different equilibrium of reactions and such, which could affect decision making.
Ok but that doesn't back the idea of transcendental free will, which is why most people seem to be bringing quantum mechanics into the thread.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 06 2012 09:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 09:15 Holy_AT wrote:On March 06 2012 08:45 Housemd wrote:I never believed in free will. Let us take a coin for example. If we flip the coin, it is a 50/50 guess on which side it would land. However, a person can accurately figure this out through careful calculations about the speed of the flip, position from which it was flipped, crosswind, etc. That can also apply to humans. The coin's fate is predetermined and so is the fate of humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predeterminism i reality, there are no nations, there are no borders, in reality there is no money and deep down you know its true or some of you may understand this on the surface but can not grasp the deeper meaning of it. Meditate about this and maybe you will get a small fraction of understanding what it really means. in reality there are nations and borders and there is certainly money. just because these things only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they are not real. Show nested quote +Are there even laws ? Laws are a construct of the humans as they construct laws everywhere. They are an illusion. Maybe there are no laws but the laws that the humans have created. again, just because they only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they don't exist. they absolutely exist, just as the words you are using exist. they would have no meaning if we didn't give them meaning, but since we do give them meaning they do have meaning. to say that the meaning we give them is an illusion is to say that you shouldn't be able to understand these words, but you do. you can't help but understand them now that you have learned them. the universe itself gives no meaning, only thinking beings can give meaning. a painting exists, even before it is painted, as long as it is conceived by the painter. it exists as an idea. to say that ideas don't exist in some form is simply wrong. Show nested quote + I do not know how to explain it to you, maybe you can get a glimmer or small grasp of it due to the limitiations that nearly all of the humans have. i have noticed in my experience that things that are impossible to explain because of the listener's "limitations" are often just hard to explain because they have no real explanation.
in reality there are nations and borders and there is certainly money. just because these things only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they are not real.
You claim that in reality, there are nations, but why ? Because the humans imagine them to be there. The humans imagine a lot of things that are not really there or that they invented, imagined. They are so cought up in their virtual world that they do not see what they or some of them at some level are capable of doing.
again, just because they only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they don't exist.
and here lies the catch, they ONLY have the meaning, that humans give them.
And then again lets stay on this plane and argue that the words have a meaning, I say they have the meaning we imagine them to have. You Imagine that my words mean something, why ? Maybe they dont, maybe they only mean something to me as it is with your words. You understand the words that you can or want to understand and imagine a meaning of them.
i have noticed in my experience that things that are impossible to explain because of the listener's "limitations" are often just hard to explain because they have no real explanation.
That is also true as is the unity of opposites.
|
On March 06 2012 09:47 Tachyon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 09:43 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote:
To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random... They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events??? I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it... JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring. So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
Weather was, is and will be deterministic, as everything in the universe. Knowing every single thing about every single particle in the universe means you can predetrmine all.
Of course we don't have the means yet to know the cause and effect of everything, but it is possible, and FREE WILL is one of the major things that drive us to this goal.
One of the things that are slowing us down in this adventurous campaign is religion. It makes us stop thinking and dive into "comfortable" unawarness of our real surroundings.
Free will, imagination and curiosity are the most creative and awesome force in the universe.
Religion, and ingorancy are the most destructive.
|
On March 06 2012 10:07 UmiNotsuki wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:05 Nagano wrote:On March 06 2012 10:02 UmiNotsuki wrote:On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote:
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism. Heisenberg Uncertainty PrincipleDirectly counter to your postulation. I know it may be impossible for us as actors in the universe to calculate both the energy and position of things. But I'm proposing that there is an actor, perhaps adjacent to our universe that could. I know that sounds weird but if it's possible to calculate these, would the rest of my theory be possible as well? This isn't about the technology we have access to. It is actually theoretically impossible to do it, without breaking some physical law. So if you're proposing some entity with the ability to break physical laws, then perhaps it could be true, but if we can assume that's true then all of science, logic, and reason becomes invalid. The rest of your theory sounds a little hair-brained to me, but if you had the computational power to do it... I suppose it's possible.
Wow hair-brained, my feelings are hurt. I will take my marijuana-induced ideas elsewhere!
Like the Roswell or 9/11 conspiracy forum.
|
On March 06 2012 10:03 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:01 NIJ wrote:
I consider this dilemma the same way I consider solipsism and brain in a vat dilemma.
Do I have free will. Yes
Do I truly have free will. Doesn't matter. How can it not matter? The opinions you hold will influence your behavior.
Well I tried to keep it short. But just like the way I consider brain in a vat dilemma, for all practical purposes I am not a brain in a vat. You can always extend the hypothetical to a point I can't be sure if I am not. To which my reply is doesn't matter.
Same here. I have a free will. But it seems you can always extend the hypothetical scenario to a point where I may not. At that point it really doesn't matter and doesn't affect me at all.
|
On March 06 2012 09:59 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 09:53 Tachyon wrote:On March 06 2012 09:48 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:47 Tachyon wrote:On March 06 2012 09:43 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote:
To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random... They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events??? I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it... JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring. So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all. Do you honestly believe that a thunderstorm is being determined according to random quantum behavior? Seriously? Why are you so binary in your way of thinking? Quantum events contribute to events on the molecular level, and those in turn contribute to macroscopic events. This doesn't mean that ONE PARTICULAR QUANTUM EVENT caused a lightning storm, because there are so insanely many instances involved. Seperate stochastic events are magnified and sometimes cause significant differences on molecular levels. You can't argue that what is too small to see under a microscope can't influence events we can actually observe. What you are telling me is that determinism doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. Let's just say my opinions differ... Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 09:49 HailPlays wrote:On March 06 2012 09:36 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 09:25 mcc wrote:On March 06 2012 08:32 Anubis390 wrote:On March 06 2012 07:59 liberal wrote:On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote:
I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate. I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition. Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false. The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is. And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable. See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change. Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesisAlso note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense. Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit". Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense. Another good post. I especially liked the first line, people often do not consider the consequences of evolution regarding how we are capable of viewing or understanding the world. There is a real problem with people rejecting an idea simply because it doesn't "feel" right, because it makes them uncomfortable. Truth is not dictated by human desire. In fact, if anything, I would say the desire for something to be true could be an argument AGAINST it's being true. But that's a completely different issue... Truth is also not dictated by tradition. Just because you've believed something your whole life, doesn't mean it is true. It is very hard to hear a radical idea and accept it with an open-mind, because we are very wary of change or radical ideas. You have to consciously guard against bias or prejudice towards an idea if you want to reach the truth. You either strive to think scientifically or you don't. If you don't think scientifically, and don't have any desire to, then don't bother coming up with flimsy justifications or rationalizations for your beliefs. Just be honest and say "this set of beliefs helps me live my life, and I will embrace them." You speak of being open-minded and guarding against prejudice in some grand quest for truth, and then you equate truth to scientific conclusions in the very next paragraph. As a philosophy student I have found, quite ironically, that science students are among the most stubborn and least receptive when it comes to open-mindedness and openness to "radical ideas" that do not sit well with their scientific outlook. Did you ever open your mind enough to ask yourself what exactly you mean by truth, and how your scientific method could possibly get at it? Scientists make progress in explaining the world according to the scientific method and using empirical evidence. Philosophy students run themselves in illogical psychological circles using concepts which had no basis from the very beginning, and arrive at no conclusions while the world is being explained around them by scientists. Sorry, I don't believe in granting an existence to things we invent in the human mind, and then debating about what our own mind meant when we created them, so I have some bias against so-called "philosophy." When I speak of "truth," you must understand I am using a very plebeian, unsophisticated, perhaps "common sense" version of the term.
You can combat neither the religious nor the (philosophically) sceptical that way. It's only useful to ridicule the unreflected. You're bullying the scientifically benighted for their lack of interest in your particular kind of truth. There's nothing common about it, unless contemporary popularity within academia is what you mean.
|
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote:
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
And this is what people thought one hundred years ago. Then we found out that you can only determine the position and velocity of a particle to a certain extent, The Uncertainty Principle. Without quantum mechanics and its non-deterministic nature, atoms could not exist, the electrons would race towards the nucleus if the world was governed by classical eletromagnetism. The Schrödinger Equation predicts the probability amplitude, you can only assign a certain probability to each quantum state...
@liberal: If you "don't agree" with quantum mechanics, then you're not arguing from a standpoint of science. You're free to not do so, but then don't imply that you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
