Time Travel, consideration of effects of point alteration

Post Reply New Topic

And movement in time is an illusion of that process. Objects do not move in time, a consciousness merely observes a cross section of the four dimensional world which is three dimensional. It is that cross section which moves, not the objects.

Are we? Can't we? Is it?


Isn't the consciousness subjected to the same cross section?

Since you are not conscious of being either in the past or the future I would think so.

I think Roger Penrose "The Emperor's new Mind" and the follow up "Shadows of the Mind" would be interesting reads for those interested in this thread.

The universe is pretty well deterministic once larger than the quantum level.
The only force we know that deviates from that determinism is us.

The only thing non-deterministic, is Quantum Mechanics.

Ergo, we possess something that has quantum effects. And, more specifically, if I may assume Free Will is real, we have the ability to alter quantum effects. Ergo, our mind is a quantum computer.

Penrose might push things a bit far, in my opinion, but he's got really good points, and his direction I believe to be fairly accurate.

We are not just riders on the cross-sectional train at speed c across the t-dimension.
We are the engineers of all that is within our sphere of influence. We direct the motion, which by moving in space we alter the speed in time (though almost negligibly) we can change things at any point we chose, and watch how the time evolution of those changes unravel.

Free will is simply quantum manipulation, ie, forcing the collapse of the wave form to a desired value.

Hmm... I know that a number of physicists have been skeptical to the idea of the brain as actually being a quantum devices, such as Max Tegmark and Victor Stenger, and honestly, to me the idea that the brain is a quantum computer seems too questionable and very much like wishful thinking.

The issue is that you assume "we know that we deviate from determinism", but the issue is that there is no basis for this knowledge. The best we have is an introspective voice that has no motivation to give the right answers. I mean, if the mind evolved, then what does evolution care about causality or our knowledge of it?

Because of that, I don't see much reason to see that free will exists, and certainly not "quantum free will", particularly given that from what I can see, the evidence is really more in favor of the idea that actions that are "chosen" are picked prior to our knowledge of them, given the Libet experiment. For that reason, it is unlikely that there is this part that consciously chooses to alter quantum effects.

Gunpowder was discovered by accident in the 9th century by Chinese alchemists. Projectile weaponry wasn't invented in the 11th century. By about the 13th century news of gunpowder traveled across the world to Europe via Dominican and Franciscan friars. And by about the 14th century the world was completely engulfed in gunpowder-based warfare. So we're talking about a time period of about 1,000 years. Let's rewind and see what might have needed to happen to get all the pieces in place in order for 4th century Romans to be given gunpowder.

Romans would have needed a thriving trade commerce with China. They didn't at the time. If they did trade with China this would've eventually lead to the Romans expanding their road system into China to make travel easier. Eventually this would have led to bigger roads and quite possibly a highway system. Instead of Italy inventing modern highways in the 20th century (1922) they would've invented them in the 4th century.

Weaponry would've had a 1,000 year head-start. If history can measure when things occurred then I would say well into the fall of the Roman Empire (sometime in the 7th century) Italians, along with China, would've invented gunpowder weapons simultaneously. 7th century Romans would have reignited their goal to conquer and control. They would immediately annex all surrounding lands including all of the middle east.

They would've still transformed into the Byzantine empire, but by this time they would have a great army at their command made up of professional conscripts from defeated nations. These conscripts would never be given high ranking positions of power and would've most likely been quite literally cannon fodder. Emboldened the Byzantine-Roman empire would then proceed east towards China, seeing China as a direct threat to their power. Meanwhile China, having discovered gunpowder, would have invented their own gunpowder weaponry. Unfortunately China wouldn't be able to defeat the Byzantine empire's sheer numbers, and would fall. Likewise so would all neighboring nations in Asia.

The Byzantine empire would've melted into a malaise having conquered lower europe, the middle east, and Asia. They would've conquered Africa, taken MANY slaves, and finally attacked most of northern Europe, include Spain and France; and Germany, and finally Russian territory. None of these nations would've never been able to defeat the Byzantine empire's numbers and would have likely fallen. I think in terms of progress, nothing good would've come from this scenario. The Byzantine empire, now in complete control of the entire eastern hemisphere, would've continued to evolved gunpowder technology. Given what they were able to achieve during their peek existence, they would've accelerated gunpowder technologies to encompass modern weaponry a few hundred years sooner. As a result many historical figures such as Stalin and Hitler would've turned out differently living under the weight of The Byzantine empire. Figures like Mussolini wouldn't have risen to power because there would've been no World War I. No England and no Holland means there may not have been pilgrims to ever reach America, or perhaps they might have left England sooner than 1620.

It's entirely possible that with the Byzantine empire's militaristic mindset a game like Fallout 3 might have become a reality. Well at least in the eastern hemisphere as the empire would have continued to develop and use evolved weaponry on a myriad of insurrections that sporadically cropped up. The ultimate outcome? A retro-future would probably exist.

So I guess what I'm saying is that even though I like Chinese food, I blame the Chinese for giving gunpowder to 4th century Romans!

I do see where you're coming from awesomelyglorrious

However, the whole issue doesn't really matter much if there is no free will... Then it was fated that I wrote that article, and took that stance, and there was nothing I, You, some god, nor anyone else in existence could've done about it. It was already determined by the otherwise deterministic nature of the macro-universe, that I had to, and would do that.

I'll invoke pascal's wager here. Though it is the rare case where I do think the wager is VALID.
There is no hidden cost to assuming free will exists.

Well... um... I think your statement is rather misleading. I mean, talking about "coulds" is misleading because the real issue is "woulds". If different people had different motivations, then I, or anybody else in existence could have caused an outcome that was different than the one that happened to come about. As for "had to", um.... I wouldn't say "had to", simply because you are being compelled by your own desires.

That being said, Pascal's wager is a cry out for intellectual dishonesty, and is this a cost? Well, sure, even if no free will exists, people still dislike being intellectually dishonest. In any case though, I don't think the wager is valid here at all. Let's say that no free will exists, how are things different? Well.... the major difference is just your belief about the nature of life, not some eternity of bliss like Pascal offers, and frankly, the entire nature of that change is pretty subjective given that even if free will doesn't exist, everything still works in the exact same way as it used to. Even further, there are legitimate reasons to think that no libertarian free will exists, and most philosophers tend to reject libertarian free will for notions of free will that are compatible with determinism. I'd push further for psychological reasons, simply because I don't think that even a free will psychology makes much sense given how the brain seems to work.

okay, I'll try to get a bit more specific in my response.

an act of free will is a volitional act
but that doesn't mean that all volitional acts are acts of free will

Terminology is a bit terse here, but what I'm saying is that not all non-knee-jerk actions are really acts of free will.
I would actually say that very few are. The acts that we think of as free will, are all to often just what you say they are, pre-picked actions, that our brain builds us up to performing.

But there are acts, that we can via lucid thought do, that is totally independent of that.

How about this... simple little experiment.
Lay you hand with your fingers spread out on the table.
ask someone to point to one of your fingers.
Then, and not until then, make a decision (considering how they asked, which they pointed to, what you think of that person's advice, and all other data that you can possible think of to consider) as to whether to wiggle the finger the person pointed to, or a different one.

Do you really think your mind pre-piked that decision?

Now... I get the drift from your post that you either disbelieve ANY free will, or that if there is free will it comes from another source.
I don't really see how it could come from another source, unless
a) there is a god who bestowed it upon us, which would require that that god had the power to do so, and that that god existed.
or b) there was some other mind/body duality, and that is an argument that has long since run it's course in philosophy, one that can only lead back to assumption a) being correct. or that duality that has been discussed since the dawn of philosophy, is in fact the quantum nature of the brain.
c) another externality exists outside the universe, but with ability to have effect within the universe.

Everything about the macroscopic world is deterministic. The only variations from that such as chaos theory stem from quantum effects being magnified many fold.
The problem with those, is this: chaos & complexity theory is in theory calculable.
so a butterfly beating it's wings in china in 1900 can affect if it rains in Canada in 2050. if you had the computational power, and the measurement ability, you could calculate that. Being reasonable, we will never have that ability either computational or measurement. But it is conceivably possible.
Okay, i know Heisenberg Uncertainty principle does probably prevent measurement to the 50th order term, but that doesn't change the fact that you COULD calculate the outcome, if you had the data.
The point i'm trying to drive home, is that if it is not quantum, it is deterministic unless there is a god (or other externality)

Assuming a god, or another externality is foolish for the same reasons you yourself cite... There is no such evidence.

Ergo, the only possible source of free will would be quantum.

So, here is where I can say either a) quantum free will exists or b) no free will exists.

Now, why i'll apply pascals wager here is this...
If b) is true... i can't stop myself from applying it.. it's already determined.
also, what difference does it make, because without free will, there is no meaning to "life" beyond the mindless replication of DNA molecules (and arguably memes)

The Libet experiment is a similar experiment in that it involves an equally arbitrary choice given to an individual to freely make. The finding was that the brain had made the "decision" prior to conscious knowledge of this choice existing. As such, it isn't that I merely think, it is that experimentally it seems true that such decisions are found in the brain before we know of them.

As for the quantum brain, well, the problem is that there is not much evidence for a quantum brain and little objective reason to believe that something like this would be the case.

Umm.... Exclavius, your line of reasoning is stupid. You're basically saying that your use of Pascal's wager is justified because you can't stop yourself from applying it. The problem is that your use of Pascal's wager is never justified in the first place, meaning that your use of Pascal's wager is still intellectually dishonest. Not only that, but if you could "stop yourself" if you had believed in free will, then you could "stop yourself" now that you believe in determinism. The debate over free will vs no free will usually has both sides believing that the same facts can be explained with their respective theories.

Finally, are you seriously arguing that your ability to wiggle a finger really determines the meaning of life??? I mean, come on, you just admitted that this is the only really clear example of free will, and it is remarkably silly. It isn't as if "having quantum powers" still blunts the existence of evolution, nor is it as if the lack really so *utterly* changes your life so dramatically. You've basically already admitted that there is almost no empirical difference between free will and no free will. I mean, what is free will to you? A God?? Your prayers are going unanswered either way, no matter whether you worship it or not.

That you can "wiggle your finger" doesn't determine the meaning of life... It determines if there IS a meaning to life.

Regarding the use pascal's wager... Well, if there is no free will... whatever I do is pre-determined. period. so yes.. that means I cannot stop. But more importantly if there is no free will it doesn't matter either. Whatever I will do in the future is outside my own control, and no matter what I or anyone can do can change that.
Intellectual dishonesty just doesn't mean a thing in that situation.

Do you think i'm using the original wording of his wager? substitute free will for god in his wager, that's what i'm using.

As for free will being a god... Well (assuming free will exists), everything that is doable, is doable only via use of free will and it's interactions with the deterministic universe. It's the only thing that CAN change the determinism.. so it really does meet the philosophical definition of a god because it can do whatever is doable, and nothing else can do more.
And again if it doesn't exist... then it doesn't matter, it's a moot point, and this entire discussion was "fated" to happen, as it happens, unalterably.

None, since he didnt have access to electricity - or batteries

All non-gravitational processes are governed by quantum physical laws.

ruveyn

My basic point still stands, as the claim is that something like this is so freaking irrelevant to anything, that holding it central seems silly. I mean, you can make these grandstanding statements, but the issue is that your point is utterly ridiculous.


Well, ok?? If what you do is "predetermined" that doesn't mean you can't stop, instead it means that the stopping is predetermined as well.

"If there is no free will, it doesn't matter". Wow... this is a massive assertion for the ability to wiggle a finger.

"Outside of my own control" Umm..... Exclavius, do you actually know what the heck you are talking about? Saying "physics determines all things" doesn't mean "I control nothing" because you are part of the set of physical processes that occur. That basic point is utterly simple. The mere fact that you've planned to do things and the past and then have done them means that "the future has proven itself to be in your control". That being said, your own free will mythicism can turn against you, because if you have free will, then you have the ability to do otherwise at any moment, meaning that you can't really control yourself if you have free will. If you don't have free will though, then self-control is just controlling one's nature, which you can do if one's nature is determined.

"Intellectual dishonesty just doesn't mean a thing in that situation." Yeah it does, we already know that the category exists, and the category of "intellectual dishonesty" isn't matter of "oh, this person is making a contra-causal choice", but rather "oh, this person is being stupid".


My point, once again, still stands. If there is no free will, then just about everything in life is exactly the same as if there is free will. I mean, all of the facts that you see, really actually aren't contingent upon "free will's existence", you just like to think they are.


I'm more accusing you of being blind and idolatrous than getting into that issue. Theists are notably often irrational when considering atheism, and you are notably irrational when considering a lack of free will (as are a number of others). Heck, you've mentioned Dan Dennett as a favorite philosopher of yours, do you think he mentions anything about contra-causal wills as part of his philosophy? No, he doesn't, but I somehow doubt that he is borderline suicidal, as you seem to require that a person be if no free will exists.



Um... yeah, because y'know rational persuasion isn't a causal factor at all in human relations, and this entire idea about local causes? Completely stupid. It is utterly meaningless to talk about an apple falling because a person shook a tree, or because of gravity, but rather all causal explanations have to go back to the Big Bang theory in order to be meaningful. Let me put it this way: if I beat you with a stick until you changed your mind, you could still say that this changing of your mind was "fated to happen", and you could still say that how it all came about "couldn't be altered by some magical philosophical idea", but I still changed your mind by beating you with a stick. Replace the stick with words and then you understand why I consider discussions important. I am still a "local cause" and your decisions are also still "local causes" and they are all still relevant, because y'know, you going off and stabbing babies just because you had no "free will" would be the same philosophical foundation as what you are doing right now, and it would still be stupid.

Look, here's what I recommend you do: read up more about compatibilism and see if you can understand and sympathize with their points. If you can really understand their position, then the foundations of your position will seem weaker, and then you probably won't hold to it so theistically.

Yes, and jogging is government by the theory of relativity, however, if a person says "relativity is irrelevant for joggers" his point is pretty simple, it is that simpler forms of physics explain jogging sufficiently such that the invocation of the more complicated theory is practically irrelevant. The same is true for quantum physical laws and macro-scale processes, as probabilistically, any significant quantum effect is negligible.

I got more to read on this topic, it looks quite interesting. But the problem is this, the philosophers involved in it tend to define "free will" to equal what i would refer to as "the illusion of free will"

I do NOT see that as free will, only an action that breaks from the otherwise "hard deterministic" nature of the universe is free will.

"illusionary free will" is when you "make a choice" but in reality that choice was already predetermined, based on past events.
"true free will" If it exists, is when you make a choice, and it is NOT SOLELY predetermined by past events (such as your beliefs, experience, paradigm, situation, etc)

It is this type of "true free will" that if it exists, I can see no source other than a quantum brain

I'm going to also go back and read what you said again, taking into consideration your differing view of free will, and re-assess your comments. I may agree, but I will say that illusionary free will is no different than pure hard determinism. It's just our brain tricking what we call a consciousness into thinking we have a choice, which granted is an evolutionary advantage as it would tend to give us reason to live, when suicide might otherwise appear to be a reasonable option... Which would reduce our likelihood to reproduce our genes.