| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"A Troll" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2006 04:14:00 PM |
| Object: |
"Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 04:05:52 PM |
|
|
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will, I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which is
free will.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 04:52:49 PM |
|
|
"Random" is a pretty grand word to describe some or all humans'
incompetence, as of such-and-such a time, at predicting whatever.
Can the word "random" be expected to usefully describe anything
unchanging over time about the universe? We could be less grand in
wording and ask how much "not-sureness" is really in the universe (the
universe itself, not just us). And I think that's at least as silly as
wondering how much human free choice is really in the universe.
Joseph Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 04:53:17 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will, I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which is
free will.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
Positing that everything is determined in advance
is assuming available computing power greater
than the entire Universe.
How can you be a slave to them when you can't
even compute them? If the universe is deterministic
then it is computing the future as fast as it can --
and we cannot know the results in advance. This
is effectively non-deterministic.
We have to make choices, and we cannot know
everything. It isn't possible to compute every result
of every choice. This is effectively free will.
The entire debate is based upon some magical
being capable of computing the future of the
Universe, and that being cannot be part of
the Universe for otherwise it would have to be
included in the computation. If it cannot be
part of the Universe then we can completely
ignore it.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 06:30:35 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159739597.341007.177300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots
made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically
deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will,
I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which
is
free will.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
Positing that everything is determined in advance
is assuming available computing power greater
than the entire Universe.
Ah, you're using language to obsfuscate. How very helpful.
Everything is not determined in advance like a computer simulation,
everything is determined by the inevitability of the outcome. No computing
power necessary. The operation of the universe is proceeding at one second
per second.
How can you be a slave to them when you can't
even compute them?
By the fact that the outcome is inevitable.
If the universe is deterministic
then it is computing the future as fast as it can --
If you call an inevitable sequence of events a computation, then one second
per second is the speed the computation is proceeding.
and we cannot know the results in advance. This
is effectively non-deterministic.
Irrelevant. Inevitable equals deterministic.
We have to make choices, and we cannot know
everything.
That appears to be the case.
It isn't possible to compute every result
of every choice.
It would be tedious as well.
This is effectively free will.
No, this is called making decisions without all the facts. This has nothing
to do with free will.
The entire debate is based upon some magical
being capable of computing the future of the
Universe, and that being cannot be part of
the Universe for otherwise it would have to be
included in the computation.
Not if you're responding to my post it isn't. I have said nothing about
advance simulations of the universe.
If it cannot be
part of the Universe then we can completely
ignore it.
Things like free will, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 07:19:12 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159739597.341007.177300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots
made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically
deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will,
I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which
is
free will.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
Positing that everything is determined in advance
is assuming available computing power greater
than the entire Universe.
Ah, you're using language to obsfuscate. How very helpful.
Everything is not determined in advance like a computer simulation,
everything is determined by the inevitability of the outcome. No computing
power necessary. The operation of the universe is proceeding at one second
per second.
How can you be a slave to them when you can't
even compute them?
By the fact that the outcome is inevitable.
If so then it is also unknowable. If an
outcome is unknowable it doesn't
matter whether it is inevitable or not.
....
This is effectively free will.
No, this is called making decisions without all the facts. This has nothing
to do with free will.
If it cannot be distingushed from free will
then it doesn't matter whether it is free will
or not. You may mastubate with the idealizations
of determinism and free will all you want, but
when it comes down to the mat what we have
can be treated as if it were free will. We still
have to make choices.
Determinism is an idealization, and there are
no ideals. No perfect circles, no perfect beings,
no perfect plans.
....
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 01:37:48 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159748352.610736.135120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159739597.341007.177300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and
effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of
free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots
made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically
deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to
strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free
will,
I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're
either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of
which
is
free will.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
Positing that everything is determined in advance
is assuming available computing power greater
than the entire Universe.
Ah, you're using language to obsfuscate. How very helpful.
Everything is not determined in advance like a computer simulation,
everything is determined by the inevitability of the outcome. No
computing
power necessary. The operation of the universe is proceeding at one
second
per second.
How can you be a slave to them when you can't
even compute them?
By the fact that the outcome is inevitable.
If so then it is also unknowable.
That's what "can't even compute them" means. And note that I have not said
they're not computable.
I compute that if I drop something, it will fall down.
If an
outcome is unknowable it doesn't
matter whether it is inevitable or not.
But not all outcomes are unknowable. I dropped my pen and it fell down just
as my computation indicated it would. I successfully computed what was
inevitable.
This is effectively free will.
No, this is called making decisions without all the facts. This has
nothing
to do with free will.
If it cannot be distingushed from free will
then it doesn't matter whether it is free will
or not.
Granted. But no one said that the facts have to have utility in order to be
facts or to be worth knowing.
And such inability to distinguish things usually indicates that the thing
doesn't actually exist.
You may mastubate with the idealizations
of determinism and free will all you want,
But of course, that's what we're both doing.
but
when it comes down to the mat what we have
can be treated as if it were free will. We still
have to make choices.
Sucks, doesn't it. But we don't *have* to fool ourselves with a happy
fiction. We can admit that we are automatons made of meat and get on with
our lives.
Determinism is an idealization, and there are
no ideals.
Unless you're suggesting that particles can whimsically decide to be here or
there, the universe is an idealization of itself.
No perfect circles, no perfect beings,
no perfect plans.
But the universe is perfectly itself.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hendrik Boom" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 08:47:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:05:52 -0500, Denis Loubet wrote:
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork
So you, inside the universe, are a machine.
that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will, I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which is
free will.
You are not a slave to the machine; you *are* the machine. Your decision
are the machine's decisions. YOu decide. What would be the point of free
will, after all, if it weren't you making your decisions depending on your
state, your beliefs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaffyDuck" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 08:51:03 PM |
|
|
On 2006-10-01 18:47:42 -0700, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@pooq.com> said:
So you, inside the universe, are a machine.
I think that is what he said, when he stated that "we're robots made of meat"
You are not a slave to the machine; you *are* the machine. Your decision
are the machine's decisions. YOu decide.
Actually, bzzzt! No. If you are the 'machine' you do NOT decide. A
'machine', by it's very definition, does not decide, does not have the
capability to decide - it only performs the task it is made for
(disregarding the usual 'watchmaker' and 'intelligent design'
arguments).
What would be the point of free
will, after all, if it weren't you making your decisions depending on your
state, your beliefs?
I think that's exactly the point - precisely, that if you are a
machine, that you have no free will. You may *believe* you have a free
will, you may be programmed to firmly believe so, but at the end of the
day, you don't.
Not really a problem for me - I believe I have free will, even though I
know I don't Smart people can internalize this. Dumb people get all
bent out of shape.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 11:22:38 PM |
|
|
"DaffyDuck" <daffyduck@spammersdie.mac.dot.com> wrote in message
news:2006100118510350073-daffyduck@spammersdiemacdotcom...
On 2006-10-01 18:47:42 -0700, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@pooq.com> said:
So you, inside the universe, are a machine.
I think that is what he said, when he stated that "we're robots made of
meat"
You are not a slave to the machine; you *are* the machine. Your decision
are the machine's decisions. YOu decide.
Actually, bzzzt! No. If you are the 'machine' you do NOT decide. A
'machine', by it's very definition, does not decide, does not have the
capability to decide - it only performs the task it is made for
(disregarding the usual 'watchmaker' and 'intelligent design' arguments).
Indeed, saying a machine makes decision is like saying rocks decide to roll
downhill.
What would be the point of free
will, after all, if it weren't you making your decisions depending on
your
state, your beliefs?
I think that's exactly the point - precisely, that if you are a machine,
that you have no free will. You may *believe* you have a free will, you
may be programmed to firmly believe so, but at the end of the day, you
don't.
And in what sense are my beliefs mine? I never decided to dislike seafood,
thus I must conclude the dislike of seafood is imposed upon me by some
circumstance. It's only mine in the sense that I'm arbitrarily saddled with
it. And if such preferences are obviously imposed, what of more subtle
preferences and beliefs? Are they likewise arbitrarily imposed by
circumstance? My "state" isn't really mine, it's an arbitrary collection of
imposed preferences that I didn't choose.
Obviously, this means I'm like a computer program stuck with arbitrary
starting values in the variable slots. My decisions consist of comparing the
arbitrary weights of these arbitrary preferences with other arbitrary
preferences and mechanically spitting out a result. When I analyze my own
decision making, at no point do I feel anything that can be called free will
entering the picture. It's always a mechanical act.
Not really a problem for me - I believe I have free will, even though I
know I don't Smart people can internalize this. Dumb people get all bent
out of shape.
Join the club! :-)
It's amazing what us robots can produce, isn't it?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
30 Sep 2006 09:24:37 PM |
|
|
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
I could not agree more. There have been a lot of threads in the past where
this came up and was discussed at great length.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 01:59:17 AM |
|
|
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what you
post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
(sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and value
definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on experiment
rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it sounds
like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment asks
questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Panties On Head" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 12:52:22 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1.353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what
you
post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden
assumptions
(sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and value
definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on
experiment
rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it
sounds
like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment
asks
questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
Thanks
Bill
Well spoken and informative Bill.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 04:09:34 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1.353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what
you post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may
be interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very
simple; determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden
assumptions (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things
exist independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and
value definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on
experiment rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense'
because it sounds like it (and to you at that) is not what science is
about. Experiment asks questions of nature - those interested in science
respect its answers.
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll of
the dice is not free will either.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 01:34:00 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:XK2dnRmGGd8ys73YnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1.353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what
you post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may
be interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very
simple; determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden
assumptions (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things
exist independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and
value definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then
the Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out
the door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on
experiment rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense'
because it sounds like it (and to you at that) is not what science is
about. Experiment asks questions of nature - those interested in science
respect its answers.
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll
of the dice is not free will either.
That is actually a misconception. Interpretations of QM exist that avoid
the issue (eg quantum decoherence and many worlds). My objection has to do
with other things than the probabilistic nature of some interpretations of
QM. When people speak of determinism they usually mean determinism in the
sence of classical physics in which in principle everything has a value at
all times and exists independent of being measured. If QM is true then we
have a powerful theorem called the Kochen Specker theorem that says nature
can't be like that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
Thanks
Bill
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 01:20:12 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:sp2Ug.39912$rP1.28680@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:XK2dnRmGGd8ys73YnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1.353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what
you post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may
be interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very
simple; determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden
assumptions (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things
exist independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and
value definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then
the Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is
out the door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views
on experiment rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense'
because it sounds like it (and to you at that) is not what science is
about. Experiment asks questions of nature - those interested in
science respect its answers.
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll
of the dice is not free will either.
That is actually a misconception.
Are you saying it's a misconception that the atomic decay of a given atom is
a random event? In my readings, people still talk about it as if it is. They
even still talk about atomic decay as a source of true ramdom numbers, just
hook your software up to a detector.
Is that all completely wrong?
Interpretations of QM exist that avoid the issue (eg quantum decoherence
and many worlds).
I'm certainly not going to agree with the many worlds interpretation until
we can unambiguously determine there's more than one. I don't pretend to
know what the quantum decoherence interpretation is.
My objection has to do with other things than the probabilistic nature of
some interpretations of QM. When people speak of determinism they
usually mean determinism in the sence of classical physics in which in
principle everything has a value at all times and exists independent of
being measured. If QM is true then we have a powerful theorem called the
Kochen Specker theorem that says nature can't be like that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
Yikes! (And that's only from my layman's understanding of the first few
paragraphs.)
But I don't see that there's a connection between even this interpretation
and free will. If one's will is a slave to a physical process, then that
physical process is the thing making decisions, not the "will". I still
don't see how anything called free will can possibly exist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 10:19:44 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:R_ednYVLeqn4xbzYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:sp2Ug.39912$rP1.28680@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:XK2dnRmGGd8ys73YnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1.353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not
what you post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading
this, may be interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science
is very simple; determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or
dies on correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two
hidden assumptions (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality
(things exist independent of context ie if they are being measured or
not) and value definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is
true then the Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so
determinism is out the door. So far QM has yet to find exception.
Basing ones views on experiment rather than what you arbitrarily call
'religious nonsense' because it sounds like it (and to you at that) is
not what science is about. Experiment asks questions of nature - those
interested in science respect its answers.
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll
of the dice is not free will either.
That is actually a misconception.
Are you saying it's a misconception that the atomic decay of a given atom
is a random event?
No - I am saying in some interpretations while it looks random in reality it
isn't. For example in the decoherence paradigm (accepted by consistent
histories, many worlds, and the decoherence interpretation) the quantum
state of the atom is in constant interactions with its surroundings. The
assumption is that these interactions, while deterministic in the sense it
is described by some differential equation that has a unique solution, is
chaotic so that is seems to be probabilistic. But, as usually elucidated,
determinism includes more than that - it also includes the assumption things
exist independent of if we measure them or not and can be assigned some
value at all times - QM rules this out.
In my readings, people still talk about it as if it is. They even still
talk about atomic decay as a source of true ramdom numbers, just hook your
software up to a detector.
The mathematical formalism is all QM theorists 100% agree about. In some
interpretations the collapse is real and is fundamentally probabilistic - in
others it is simply a mathematical device.
Is that all completely wrong?
Not at all. This is a subtle issue. The bottom line is some
interpretations say QM is fundamentally probabilistic - others don't. For
the detail you really need to study the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
Interpretations of QM exist that avoid the issue (eg quantum decoherence
and many worlds).
I'm certainly not going to agree with the many worlds interpretation until
we can unambiguously determine there's more than one. I don't pretend to
know what the quantum decoherence interpretation is.
My objection has to do with other things than the probabilistic nature of
some interpretations of QM. When people speak of determinism they
usually mean determinism in the sence of classical physics in which in
principle everything has a value at all times and exists independent of
being measured. If QM is true then we have a powerful theorem called the
Kochen Specker theorem that says nature can't be like that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
Yikes! (And that's only from my layman's understanding of the first few
paragraphs.)
But I don't see that there's a connection between even this interpretation
and free will.
The above is not an interpretation - it is a theorem. Remember I said 100%
quantum theorists agree on the mathematical formalism hence 100% of
theorists would agree with the Kochen Specker theorem since it uses only
that formalism - no interpretation is used. Naive realism is defined as the
belief that all quantities exist at all times independent of context. This
is the assumption on which classical mechanics is founded and on which the
ideas of determinism, volition, free will etc were couched all those
centuries ago. In QM one may still have the overall wave function of the
universe evolving in a perfectly predictable manner but some of the
quantities associated with that wavefunction (and they may very well be
properties we want to predict to make the claim behavior is determined hence
there is no free will) must violate naive realism. If that is the case you
can't even speak of people having those properties without reference to some
measurement context. I suggest such is not what people mean when they say
we don't have free will - it is all pre-ordained. I suggest they also mean
it exists independent of what behavior we decide to look at.
Thanks
Bill
If one's will is a slave to a physical process, then that physical process
is the thing making decisions, not the "will". I still don't see how
anything called free will can possibly exist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
05 Oct 2006 07:28:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:19:44 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com>
wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
..
In my readings, people still talk about it as if it is. They even still
talk about atomic decay as a source of true ramdom numbers, just hook your
software up to a detector.
I recommend different readings. Try orthodox quantum mechanics and
quit reading science fiction written by some goofoff who claims to be
a physicist because he kissed his major professor's ***** for 10 years.
Spontaneous emission is a source of true random numbers. But that does
not mean the process itself is random. You, like most people, can't
picture a deterministic process yielding random quantities. Yet the
simplest example is to reach in a jar of white and black balls. That
process is 100% guaranteed to be deterministic because it is purely
classical. Yet the result is to produce a random quantity.
Who brainwashed you and most other people into concluding that just
because a process produces a random quantity that therefore the
process itself must be random. That's classical thinking thanks to
LaPlace and his followers. You need to get modern - get quantum
mechanical. All processes in QM are completely deterministic. If the
process of spontaneous emission were random, then it would not work
because the atom would not be subject to any laws of physics. The atom
could do whatever happens, and that is not how physical processes
work. They evolve in an ordered manner from start to finish, which
means they can't be random.
The reason that the time when a particular decay is truly random is
because in many body theory it makes no difference which particles
participate in which events - because all particles are identical. All
that matters is that an average number participate. In spontaneous
emission, you cannot calculate the time when a particular atom decays
because there is no such thing as a "particular atom" in many body
theory. There's only the wave function. That means that the process of
spontaneous emission does not depend on which atom decays, only that a
certain number do decay per unit time on the average. It makes no
difference which atoms decay at any one moment because there is no
such thing as "any atoms" - only the wave function governing the
process in terms of second quantization.
The mathematical formalism is all QM theorists 100% agree about. In some
interpretations the collapse is real and is fundamentally probabilistic - in
others it is simply a mathematical device.
There is no collapse. That is a remnant of first quantization and has
been replaced by second quantization. When a measurement occurs, the
many body wave function transforms to a single particle wave function.
That's because the detector has been mixed in with the particles. That
transition is completely deterministic - there is no "collapse".
Not at all. This is a subtle issue. The bottom line is some
interpretations say QM is fundamentally probabilistic - others don't. For
the detail you really need to study the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
That is no place to be studying this subject.
While Wikipedia is a good source for a new subject, it is hardly the
definitive source for something as complex as the interpretation of
quantum mechanics. You would be best served reading the general
literature.
In QM one may still have the overall wave function of the
universe evolving in a perfectly predictable manner but some of the
quantities associated with that wavefunction (and they may very well be
properties we want to predict to make the claim behavior is determined hence
there is no free will) must violate naive realism.
There is a reason for that. Those quantities are not important to the
process. It makes no difference when an atom decays, all that matters
is that an average number decay per unit time. That is because the
particles are identical - there is no Atom #1, Atom #2, etc. There is
no way to track the path in phase space. All you can do is track the
many body wave function in Hilbert Space. When an atom decays is
irrelevant to the process of spontaneous emission.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
01 Oct 2006 05:17:39 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll of
the dice is not free will either.
QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 01:40:49 AM |
|
|
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4oapmaFdn5biU2@individual.net...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll
of the dice is not free will either.
QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
Nice to see you posting again Bob. Sure - but my objection goes further
than that. It rests on the fact most people would bundle naive realism in
with determinism - and it is naive realism the Kochen Specker theorem
specifically forbids if QM is correct. I am not too worried about if given
the initial state of the universe everything is preordained so we have no
free will - which in practical terms is of zero help - I am worried people
understand exactly what QM violates.
Thanks
Bill
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 09:31:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:17:39 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
There is no such thing as the "collapse of the wave function". The
wave function makes a continuous deterministic transition from one
state to another when a measurement is performed.
This "collapse" nonsense is a remnant of the defunct Copenhagen
Interpretation which was caused by the failure of first quantization
to explain transitions between eigenstates. Later second quantization
was developed in which there was a natural mechanism for transitions.
Every process in quantum mechanics, including measurement, is
completely deterministic. That's because the wave equations employ
Unitary operators. There are certain variables that are intrinsically
unknowable due to the many body nature of second quantization, but
that does not mean that the process that evolves in Hilbert Space is
not completely deterministic.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
02 Oct 2006 01:01:01 PM |
|
|
"Citizen Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:452121b5.146363031@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:17:39 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
There is no such thing as the "collapse of the wave function". The
wave function makes a continuous deterministic transition from one
state to another when a measurement is performed.
This "collapse" nonsense is a remnant of the defunct Copenhagen
Interpretation which was caused by the failure of first quantization
to explain transitions between eigenstates. Later second quantization
was developed in which there was a natural mechanism for transitions.
Every process in quantum mechanics, including measurement, is
completely deterministic. That's because the wave equations employ
Unitary operators. There are certain variables that are intrinsically
unknowable due to the many body nature of second quantization, but
that does not mean that the process that evolves in Hilbert Space is
not completely deterministic.
Ok, I'm not going to pretend I understand all that! ;-) But from everything
I've read, the atomic decay of a given atom is supposed to be a genuine
random event. Was everything I read wrong, or was my understanding of it
wrong, or has more recent findings shown it to be wrong?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
03 Oct 2006 05:57:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:01:01 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Ok, I'm not going to pretend I understand all that! ;-) But from everything
I've read, the atomic decay of a given atom is supposed to be a genuine
random event. Was everything I read wrong, or was my understanding of it
wrong, or has more recent findings shown it to be wrong?
You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
particular atom decays.
To claim that radioactive decay is a random process because the time
when a particular atom decays is random is wrong. It shows that the
person making this claim does not understand physics.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
03 Oct 2006 07:16:32 AM |
|
|
Citizen Bob wrote:
You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
particular atom decays.
Random implies non-deterministic. If you the initial conditions are
random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
have been my grandpa.
In the practical sense, the outcome cannot be predict with certainty wo
you end up with a probalistic model which only works when dealing with
ensambles or sets. Bottom line: there is no practical difference between
metaphysical indeterminism and epistemological indeterminism. In either
case, you have a crap shoot.
Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
either with certainty.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
03 Oct 2006 09:08:53 AM |
|
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
Citizen Bob wrote:
You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
particular atom decays.
Random implies non-deterministic. If you the initial conditions are
random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
have been my grandpa.
Or a transexual....
Look, you are confused but this is nothing knew in these ngs.
Deterministic means that everything has a causal explanation. You can
have a deterministic system subject to random initial conditions. The
process is still deterministic since there is causality involved. Think
of a proximity switch activated by a fly to cause the light go on. The
system is deterministic because every time something activates the
switch the light goes on. Because you do not know when the fly will sit
on the switch and activate it that does not make the system
non-deteministic.
Acausal theories fail the test of counterfactuals. Every foken time I
hit the switch I get the light to go on. You cannot have an all
encompasing acausal theory of physical reality. It is plain crap.
Causality rules the world.
In the practical sense, the outcome cannot be predict with certainty wo
you end up with a probalistic model which only works when dealing with
ensambles or sets. Bottom line: there is no practical difference between
metaphysical indeterminism and epistemological indeterminism. In either
case, you have a crap shoot.
First time I hear of a "difference" between "metaphysical
indeterminism" and "epistemological indeterminism". If you meant
ontological indeterminism that may make some sense..
Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
either with certainty.
and you think that has something to do with determinism? Let me laugh
:)
Mike
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
04 Oct 2006 10:49:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:16:32 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
particular atom decays.
Random implies non-deterministic.
There are so many different uses of the term "random" that anything
can be said about it.
If you the initial conditions are
random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
have been my grandpa.
Typical 19th century thinking.
Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
either with certainty.
The process involved in that experiment is nevertheless completely
deterministic because it is governed by the Shrodinger Equation which
uses Unitary operators. That guarantees the process is deterministic.
The problem people have with determinism is that they insist on using
classical implementations. Quantum Determinism is not the same as
Classical Determinism. In quantum mechanics a process can be
completely deterministic (as it must be because it is governed by
Unitary operators) yet there are certain quantities that are
intrinsically unknowable that gives the *impression* that the process
is random.
But this confusion is not limited to quantum mechanics. Consider this
event: You are given a jar with white and black balls in equal number.
You reach in and retrieve a ball. The color of the ball is
instrinsically unknowable in advance. But the process of obtaining the
ball is completely deterministic. You may claim that the process is
"random" but it is not non-deterministic at all. There is nothing that
is non-deterministic about how you retrieved the ball, which is the
process by which you "measured" the event.
All I can do is warn you that the notion of randomness is very
confused. If you take the time to explore that statement, you will
discover it for yourself. Li and Vitanyi wrote a book that spends
considerable time explaining the many pitfalls that one encounters by
sloppy use of the term "random".
An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications
Li and Vitani
Hardcover: 642 pages
Springer Verlag
2nd edition (March 1997)
ISBN: 0387948686
William Feller has a lot to say about sloppy thinking in statistics.
An Introduction To Probability Theory and Its Applications
William Feller
Hardcover: 528 pages
Wiley Text Books; 3rd edition (1968)
ISBN: 0471257087
Quantum processes are completely deterministic. There are no
exceptions.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
04 Oct 2006 11:26:31 AM |
|
|
Citizen Bob wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:16:32 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
particular atom decays.
Random implies non-deterministic.
There are so many different uses of the term "random" that anything
can be said about it.
If you the initial conditions are
random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
have been my grandpa.
Typical 19th century thinking.
Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
either with certainty.
The process involved in that experiment is nevertheless completely
deterministic because it is governed by the Shrodinger Equation which
uses Unitary operators. That guarantees the process is deterministic.
The problem people have with determinism is that they insist on using
classical implementations. Quantum Determinism is not the same as
Classical Determinism. In quantum mechanics a process can be
completely deterministic (as it must be because it is governed by
Unitary operators) yet there are certain quantities that are
intrinsically unknowable that gives the *impression* that the process
is random.
But this confusion is not limited to quantum mechanics. Consider this
event: You are given a jar with white and black balls in equal number.
You reach in and retrieve a ball. The color of the ball is
instrinsically unknowable in advance. But the process of obtaining the
ball is completely deterministic. You may claim that the process is
"random" but it is not non-deterministic at all. There is nothing that
is non-deterministic about how you retrieved the ball, which is the
process by which you "measured" the event.
All I can do is warn you that the notion of randomness is very
confused. If you take the time to explore that statement, you will
discover it for yourself. Li and Vitanyi wrote a book that spends
considerable time explaining the many pitfalls that one encounters by
sloppy use of the term "random".
An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications
Li and Vitani
Hardcover: 642 pages
Springer Verlag
2nd edition (March 1997)
ISBN: 0387948686
William Feller has a lot to say about sloppy thinking in statistics.
An Introduction To Probability Theory and Its Applications
William Feller
Hardcover: 528 pages
Wiley Text Books; 3rd edition (1968)
ISBN: 0471257087
Quantum processes are completely deterministic. There are no
exceptions.
Excellent explanations. Do you have any sources that are more oriented
towards lay readers with less of a mathematical background?
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
04 Oct 2006 12:16:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:26:31 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote:
Quantum processes are completely deterministic. There are no
exceptions.
Excellent explanations. Do you have any sources that are more oriented
towards lay readers with less of a mathematical background?
These will get you started:
The Fabric of the Cosmos:
Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
by Brian Greene
Hardcover: 576 pages
Knopf; 1st edition (February 10, 2004)
ISBN: 0375412883
The Emperor's New Mind:
Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics
by Roger Penrose
Paperback: 480 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press (October, 2002)
ISBN: 0192861980
Shadows of the Mind:
A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Paperback)
by Roger Penrose
Paperback: 480 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (May, 1996)
ISBN: 0195106466
The Shaky Game:
Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory
by Arthur Fine
Paperback Reprint edition (October 1988)
University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 0226249476
---
Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality:
Solving the Quantum Mysteries
by John Gribbin
Paperback (May 1996)
Little Brown & Co (Paper)
ISBN: 0316328197
Search for a Naturalistic World View:
Scientific Method and Epistemology
by Abner Shimony
Hardcover Vol 1 (June 1993)
Cambridge Univ Pr
Search for a Naturalistic World View:
Natural Science and Metaphysics
by Abner Shimony
Paperback Vol 2 (June 1993)
Cambridge Univ Pr
Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell
By A. Zee
Princeton U. Press 2003
518 pages
ISBN: 0691010196
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
04 Oct 2006 02:33:19 PM |
|
|
Citizen Bob wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:26:31 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote:
Quantum processes are completely deterministic. There are no
exceptions.
Excellent explanations. Do you have any sources that are more oriented
towards lay readers with less of a mathematical background?
These will get you started:
The Fabric of the Cosmos:
Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
by Brian Greene
Hardcover: 576 pages
Knopf; 1st edition (February 10, 2004)
ISBN: 0375412883
The Emperor's New Mind:
Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics
by Roger Penrose
Paperback: 480 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press (October, 2002)
ISBN: 0192861980
Shadows of the Mind:
A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Paperback)
by Roger Penrose
Paperback: 480 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (May, 1996)
ISBN: 0195106466
The Shaky Game:
Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory
by Arthur Fine
Paperback Reprint edition (October 1988)
University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 0226249476
---
Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality:
Solving the Quantum Mysteries
by John Gribbin
Paperback (May 1996)
Little Brown & Co (Paper)
ISBN: 0316328197
Search for a Naturalistic World View:
Scientific Method and Epistemology
by Abner Shimony
Hardcover Vol 1 (June 1993)
Cambridge Univ Pr
Search for a Naturalistic World View:
Natural Science and Metaphysics
by Abner Shimony
Paperback Vol 2 (June 1993)
Cambridge Univ Pr
Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell
By A. Zee
Princeton U. Press 2003
518 pages
ISBN: 0691010196
Thank you!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
03 Oct 2006 12:41:40 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba schrieb:
"A Troll" <anobvioustroll@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCEAAB7unsubtle@217.160.217.58...
Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what you
post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
(sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and value
definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on experiment
rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it sounds
like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment asks
questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
Thanks
Bill
Isn't the double slot exp. an evidence for "free will"?
For me yes.
Rudi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it? |
04 Oct 2006 11:13:27 AM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2006 10:41:40 -0700, "Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy@aon.at> wrote:
Isn't the double slot exp. an evidence for "free will"?
For me yes.
I prefer to look upon the process of spontaneous emission as evidence
for free will. That process is completely determinist in the quantum
sense of determinism (Unitary operators) but there is at least one
quantity - the time for a emission event - that is intrinsically
unknowable, not because it is probabilistic per se but because the
wave equation tells you that it is not possible to know it in advance.
Tied up in all this is the notion of uncomputibilty, first discussed
by Alan Turing. A truly random quantity, such as the emission time, is
uncomputable because there is no algorithm to compute it. QM tells you
that explicitly. The most you can compute is the average probability
per unit time for an event. That is a constant which means there is no
specific time for an event that can be computed.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
