17 Mar 2011, 3:05 pm
17 Mar 2011, 3:08 pm
ruveyn wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
The idea that quantum physics is really deterministic at the core died with Einstein. Randomness is.
The experiments falsifying Bell's Inequalities have pretty well put a stake through strict determinism and local interactions.
Quantum Theory is right and Einstein was wrong on this matter.
ruveyn
It's a shame, too. I liked the certainty of the newtonian world view (which I held until I was fifteen). I guess thats the reason Einstein so doggedly defended the position. At least the probabilities are fairly certain
17 Mar 2011, 3:20 pm
17 Mar 2011, 3:38 pm
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
17 Mar 2011, 3:43 pm
17 Mar 2011, 3:45 pm
17 Mar 2011, 4:10 pm
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
17 Mar 2011, 4:51 pm
ryan93 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
I still think that the answer to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or not is a little inconsequential.
Probably, since free will fails before you get to issues of determinism simply by lack of any proposed mechanism. But the universe being deterministic on a macro scale gives a nice illustration of the absurdity.
Exactly. We know thoughts are biochemical, so are there little men sitting on the ions, desiring whether to pass through the membrane wall? And how do these little men make there choices? Are there tiny men on their Na+ ions?? Not only is there no proposed mechanism, but I imagine most would end in infinite regress, or evoke a undefined "soul".
most humorous post in my eyes on wp tonight
is it possible i could get some thoughts on my post above, im curious as to what people make of it? (wow that sounds egotistical to me but what the hell)
17 Mar 2011, 5:02 pm
Thanks
Quote:
true.
in my eyes it is true that we are governed by natural law, but because of the above any such "guidance" will ultimately leave at least a bit of wiggle room, that is where the "subjective free will" comes in, it allows the last part of the calculation to make sense and not be completely random.
in my eyes it is true that we are governed by natural law, but because of the above any such "guidance" will ultimately leave at least a bit of wiggle room, that is where the "subjective free will" comes in, it allows the last part of the calculation to make sense and not be completely random.
It's very unlikely that free will is hiding in quantum mechanics; at best, it creates a scenario where there is a 1/10 chance of event B happening instead of event A. But we would define this as random. I'm personally not a huge fan of the quantum free will hypotheses, but then again Schrödinger and Penrose are, and both are smarter men than me. I would probably play around with that paradox that Orwell posted to
As for the use of the term "subjective free will", it was a misnomer (as Orwell pointed out by me), as it's a misleading phrase. In this case you are postulating normal free will, not the illusion thereof.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
17 Mar 2011, 5:12 pm
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
17 Mar 2011, 7:35 pm
ryan93 wrote:
Thanks
It's very unlikely that free will is hiding in quantum mechanics; at best, it creates a scenario where there is a 1/10 chance of event B happening instead of event A. But we would define this as random. I'm personally not a huge fan of the quantum free will hypotheses, but then again Schrödinger and Penrose are, and both are smarter men than me. I would probably play around with that paradox that Orwell posted to
As for the use of the term "subjective free will", it was a misnomer (as Orwell pointed out by me), as it's a misleading phrase. In this case you are postulating normal free will, not the illusion thereof.
Quote:
true.
in my eyes it is true that we are governed by natural law, but because of the above any such "guidance" will ultimately leave at least a bit of wiggle room, that is where the "subjective free will" comes in, it allows the last part of the calculation to make sense and not be completely random.
in my eyes it is true that we are governed by natural law, but because of the above any such "guidance" will ultimately leave at least a bit of wiggle room, that is where the "subjective free will" comes in, it allows the last part of the calculation to make sense and not be completely random.
It's very unlikely that free will is hiding in quantum mechanics; at best, it creates a scenario where there is a 1/10 chance of event B happening instead of event A. But we would define this as random. I'm personally not a huge fan of the quantum free will hypotheses, but then again Schrödinger and Penrose are, and both are smarter men than me. I would probably play around with that paradox that Orwell posted to
As for the use of the term "subjective free will", it was a misnomer (as Orwell pointed out by me), as it's a misleading phrase. In this case you are postulating normal free will, not the illusion thereof.
thank you, made a lot of sense, and the more i think of your way of probablity, the more i find it fascinating.
though when i talk of free will i always talk of "influencing probabilities" dunno if you got that from my previous post.
and everytime i use quotation marks like the above it is basically because i have to write something to try to describe what i mean, usually i am not even sure how well these work, so please call me on it if it just seems like garbled nonsense.
07 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
07 Dec 2011, 9:44 pm
07 Dec 2011, 11:38 pm
