EPTThe basic point you end up with is that because you can explain something and find a connection between things, the future is influenced by the past and can be predicted. This really doesn't mean anything. Since everything we know is made up of physics, there is no wonder that every single detail can be explained as an effect of physics. And if you know everything, then yes, you can know the future. None of that means that we don't have free will. It just helps explain how our reality works. Our choices are still free, be it whether you see it as a human being making these choices or an entity made of up chemicals, atoms and neurons somehow shaping some kind of distinguishable reality. As you can see, in the end, translating all that we see into scientific terms isn't really of any use, since when you talk about things in terms of atoms, free will doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Something's been bothering me (physics related) - Page 4
| Blogs > Stripe |
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
The basic point you end up with is that because you can explain something and find a connection between things, the future is influenced by the past and can be predicted. This really doesn't mean anything. Since everything we know is made up of physics, there is no wonder that every single detail can be explained as an effect of physics. And if you know everything, then yes, you can know the future. None of that means that we don't have free will. It just helps explain how our reality works. Our choices are still free, be it whether you see it as a human being making these choices or an entity made of up chemicals, atoms and neurons somehow shaping some kind of distinguishable reality. As you can see, in the end, translating all that we see into scientific terms isn't really of any use, since when you talk about things in terms of atoms, free will doesn't really have anything to do with it. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
<3 | ||
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
to me you always are measuring what is good or bad based on what you see for me predetermination is not always present if it was always present then everything would follow a more predictable pattern. Not everything is easy to predict and not everything follows a certain pattern. Either way in my view your choices make the pattern not the other way around. It may seem when things all line up but when they dont how would you explain that? | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4147 Posts
| ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
The absolute sense of free will is very easy to describe, and hence easy to discuss. The other version is much more complicated to define. Or make that versions, wikipedia gives some disambiguation hints. I'd like to point out that the topic of this thread has the suffix "(physics related)" so I think free will in the absolute sense is the thread creator's aim. | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
On April 20 2010 05:27 Asjo wrote: And if you know everything, then yes, you can know the future [from physics]. Well ... sort of. (The following assumes that quantum mechanics as we know it today is correct). If you know the wavefunction of every particle in the universe right now, then you can theoretically know the wavefunction of every particle at any time in the future. There are two things to consider here, though. First is that observation collapses wavefunctions in a probabilistic and not-entirely-predictable fashion (this is where the "no hidden variables" thing that I brought up in my previous post comes in), so we're only good for so long. Once it collapses we can continue to figure out how the wavefunction evolves, of course, but we have no way of knowing for sure what it'll collapse to. Second is that it's not physically possible to measure the wavefunction of anything, so it's anyone's guess how we'd get the wavefunctions in the first place (observables depend on the wavefunction squared). | ||
|
DexterHGTourney
United States17 Posts
Have you read any Charles A. Campbell, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, Roderick Chisholm, W.D. Ross, Robert Nozick, etc.? Curious how your Philosophical views line up. I myself am a Aristotlean-Kantian Deontologist-Rationalist. It just seems to me that so much emphasis is being placed on Science that we are losing true knowledge. A priorism, Praxeology, Reason, Logic. Edit: I'm also a Phil major, but my main interest lies in Economics (I double major). Just curious on everyones belief systems here :p | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
On April 20 2010 06:11 crate wrote: Well ... sort of. (The following assumes that quantum mechanics as we know it today is correct). If you know the wavefunction of every particle in the universe right now, then you can theoretically know the wavefunction of every particle at any time in the future. There are two things to consider here, though. First is that observation collapses wavefunctions in a probabilistic and not-entirely-predictable fashion (this is where the "no hidden variables" thing that I brought up in my previous post comes in), so we're only good for so long. Once it collapses we can continue to figure out how the wavefunction evolves, of course, but we have no way of knowing for sure what it'll collapse to. Second is that it's not physically possible to measure the wavefunction of anything, so it's anyone's guess how we'd get the wavefunctions in the first place (observables depend on the wavefunction squared). qft. Physics explicitly states that you can't know everything. There are some things you have to make a choice about - linked pairs of information of which reality only gives you the option of knowing one or the other with total precision. Energy and time are linked this way as are position and momentum - the more accurately you know one of the values the less accurately you know the other. This allows particles, for example, to "borrow" energy from the future for some interaction in the present so long as they "give it back" in a short enough time. Just the same, since our minds are complex chemical computers and are subject to these uncertainties on the scale of the reactions going on inside our brains we don't necessarily have to operate in a strictly deterministic manner. It also doesn't mean that this can be a source of "free will", however, since we equally can't control the probabilistic nature of these effects. The best description for human behaviour is deterministic mixed with enough chaos to provide the illusion of free choice, imo. If anyone really wants something to scratch their heads over, how about this : Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Elementary particles...looking into the future? | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
On April 20 2010 05:56 lMPERVlOUS wrote: Asjo, you are asserting that there is something which does not manifest in reality and you cannot say something about it, but you are desperately saying something about it..... How is this different from a delusion? Sorry for taking my time to get back to you. I read this, got confused, and decided to play a bit of Half-Life 2 Deathmatch. I have now re-read my comment to find out what you are referring to. I have said earlier that talking about free choice while not relating it to humans rather to particles is useless as basically it's just a matter of semantics. It doesn't change that fact that we make choices, whether or not we make it as being made up of an inter-connection of atoms and neurons. Sorry to re-iterate myself. Now, you're saying that I state that something does not manifest in reality. I'm not sure how I am to take that. I assume you are referring to the above, where I am simply underlining an important different in usefully distinguishing reality. All of this is reality. Physics, be it by our scientific definitions or something more abstract. Construct, the ideas that shape among people and give meaning to things, be it the idea of human beings or the notion of free will. All of this exits and is thereby reality, one that most people share. So ...yeah, I'd ask you to elaborate if I am to be of any use in clearing up your puzzlement. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4147 Posts
Every one of our senses are based on the physics. You can feel because your neurons are transmitting signals. You can see it because your optical nerves send signals when excited by an external stimulus. You can hear because of the pressure changes in the air around you. You can taste it because the taste buds recognize that there is something on your tongue. You can smell because the receptors in your nasal passage recognize a particle is there. Physics is based on our observations from our senses (and equipment that can sense things using these same principles, possibly powerful enough to sense things that we cannot sense either because the stimulus is too strong or too weak for us to comprehend). How does an abstract concept like "free will" compare to that, exactly? Especially in a thread with a "(physics related)" comment in the title? You're talking about semantics in a physics topic, without having anything physical in your argument..... It's kinda pointless..... | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
Anyway, you are asking me how one can compare an abstract concept, like that of free will, to a more specific one like the science of physics. I guess this is what I have been asking you. As I'm saying, these two are different aspects of the same thing and I not useful to use to explain each other. I'd like to point out that I'm not really discussing the semantics, I'm merely pointing out that semantics actually seems to be the reason why people in this thread are suddenly confused about the existence of free will. Obviously, I don't need anything about physics in my argument, seeing that, as explained, physics simply helps explain our actions; it doesn't actually change anything about them. I have accepted that there are all kinds of physical connection between things and that perfect knowledge would allow you to predict the future, but pointed out that this doesn't mean that we don't make free choices or that our choices are in any way pre-determined. If you are somehow trying to relate this to physics, in light of what we have written, I'm missing the point. I would think you are aiming at the following point of example: scientists certain impulses in your brain and can, by interpreting these, know that you will perform a certain action 30 seconds later. Your argument would be that you are not able to make free choices because it all comes down to some kind of stimuli or cause/effect, not you wanting to do something. Meanwhile, I am saying that this process is not something that impedes on you being able to make free choices, but is rather a natural part of you making those choices. We much accept that our understanding of at all making a choice implicitly includes human beings having the physiological make up that the have, and that the processes leading up to you performing a certain action can therefore not be external, but rather internal, such as the free choice. Therefore, I point out that trying to apply this kind of thinking to your own life is pointless, and is rather a result of a confusion of semantics. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4147 Posts
How is it obvious that your argument does not need anything about physics, in a physics discussion? This particularly confounds me: On April 20 2010 08:35 Asjo wrote: I have accepted that there are all kinds of physical connection between things and that perfect knowledge would allow you to predict the future, but pointed out that this doesn't mean that we don't make free choices or that our choices are in any way pre-determined. What? Perfect knowledge would allow us to predict the future, yet it is not predetermined? That is a huge contradiction there..... Science is looking for perfect knowledge, although I doubt anyone is trying to use it to build a machine to determine events in the future..... Predict things like the rise and fall of the stock market? Sure. The whole future? No way. How is it possible that we could have the ability to determine what someone is going to, and this has no effect on your concept of "free will"? What is free will to you? Is it a delusion that everything is under an individual's control? If it's true that it is a delusion, I'd rather be delusional here..... Is it because our brains truly can't understand, nor be capable of dealing with it? I'd think that "free will" would be the ability to make decisions, which are in no way predetermined. Maybe you and I have different views on it..... I'm going to order a pizza tonight. The toppings I get on it will be a choice of mine. Or will they? They can be explained relatively easily as well..... I have certain "preferred" toppings. I honestly don't understand the reason why, but it's probably has roots in the social structure I was raised in, the social structure I am currently in, past history with the pizza parlor, genetics, my body telling me I need certain minerals/vitamins and making me crave certain toppings to fullfill it's requirements, etc..... It's a huge mess, no doubt barely scratching the surface with my description..... Is this truly a choice of mine? Or is it rooted in everything that happened previously, which culminates at this point, merely giving me an illusion of choice? Maybe I'll decide to order toppings that I don't like, just to spite this illusion of "free will", but, then again, that could be a chemical reaction in my brain telling me to do that out of spite to the thought that I have no free will, because it will put my mind at ease and allow me to sleep better at night..... Etc..... Who knows? I really don't know, and I don't plan on thinking about it anymore. But science explains so much more than philosophy ever will..... I had this line of thought a few years ago, and it scared me more than anything else in my life has ever scared me..... The consequences of it that I also came to. Quarter-life crisis passed, and it's been on cruise since then. Then again, it made it really difficult to do well in my ethics course, cause my prof was the type where it was like "agree with me for a good grade, fail with a different view"..... I just couldn't wrap my head around some of the concepts he was preaching..... | ||
|
Stripe
United States67 Posts
About the definition of free will, I guess it doesn't matter that much to me how you define it. I guess I'll just avoid using that term. What really bothers me is that if the universe is deterministic, then our lives would be set in stone. Although we might feel that we're calling the shots, our lives are going to play out the same way every time. If the universe is random due to quantum mechanics then how our lives play out is simply random as well. This just blows my mind. Maybe it's best if I just don't think further on this topic and just enjoy my perception of choice. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4147 Posts
 | ||
|
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
TED Q &A on Parallel Universes and non determinism | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
 Schrödinger's equation works great for building computer processors and quantum wells. It sucks for trying to figure out wtf to do with yourself or why we're all here, lol. | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
I assume that we might by now have reached a deadlock. It seems that I am by no means eloquent to get my point across in a manner where you can accept it. I understand by now that it's simply a matter of definition and how to choose to see it. We both know that certain events in the past eventually lead to what happens right now. Saying that this somehow has an effect on concepts such as free will seems to be a moot point, and, as I said, I think people are simply caught up in the semantics of it (which may shape the way in which we understand the process leading to our decisions, depend on how you put it) and come to see it in a certain light. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
So let's talk about free will at the level of human understanding, how we reach decisions based on previous influences within the limits of human observation so to speak. There is plenty of research on human behavior, for a part funded by the advertising industry as that industry is all about influencing decisions. From Pavlov's dog to the right sequence of scenes in a commercial. Testing human behavior in various circumstances with empirical methods. This leads me to believe that one does not have a completely free will, as one's will can be influenced by another one's will on purpose. I would think that with the expansion of knowledge on human behavior, people become less free. Asjo, I really think that the OP means to correlate the advertisement in the video to the interaction between particles. The metaphor is really straightforward. | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
Since I found your post a bit vague (didn't know what your reasoning for saying that we only have part free will was), I chose to look up Pavlov's dog. I stmubled upon a few more definitions, and apparently what I have been arguing is somewhat close to soft determinism: Quote from tutor2u: "Free Will and Determinism": SOFT DETERMINISM Soft Determinism is the view that human freedom and moral responsibility are far from being incompatible with determinism; rather determinism is incomprehensible without it. The misconception that the two are incompatible comes from a considerable confusion over what we mean when we say we are free. Freedom is incompatible with fatalism, but not with determinism. All actions are wholly governed by causes but there are two types of causes: There are two types of causes; 1) Internal Causes Lead to voluntary actions of free will, the results of one’s own wishes or desires, for example when you leave your country freely because it is your desire to go abroad. 2) External Causes Lead to involuntary actions of compulsion, contrary to one’s wishes or desires, for example when you leave the country because you are forced out by the Government. It is this distinction which explains why soft determinism requires free-will. According to soft determinists, when we say a person acted freely we mean they did not act under compulsion or external pressure - they acted as free agents, even though their actions were just as much caused as those that are not free. Soft determinists therefore define freedom as the liberty of spontaneity, the freedom to act according to one’s nature which is determined by external factors such as heredity, education and background. Edit: Come to think of it, I think I get your point now. You were talking about advertising agencies because here we have an example of people who want to provide stimuli to affect and manipulate our free choice. So, you are saying that the more science uncover about the manipulation of human behaviour, the less free behaviour becomes because people will find means to control us by our impulses. In a sociological sense (since we both agree that any abstract sense isn't useful to conceptualize), this does indeed impede our on free choice, since you clearly have one actor who is directly manipulating the choice of the other. | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
| ||
| ||
