[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
QM & Free Will
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread replies: 98
Thread images: 4
File: 1453300313001.jpg (2 KB, 200x133) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1453300313001.jpg
2 KB, 200x133
Is the indeterminism in QM relevant to the question of free will?
Isn't the indeterminism going away on neuron-level, and even if, how should we able to control the indeterminism?

also: general free will thread, old one is 404
>>
>>7847078
Randomness or determinism, not much evidence for free will, unless you accept the Lord into your heart and accept that some things science will never understand
>>
No, free will is a function of the brain.
>>
>>7847084
Which lord?
There are so many, should I follow one of the premade lords, and if yes, which one, or should I just make up my own definition of the lord?
>>
>>7847092
Pagan scum! You know which one I mean!
Thor obviously.
>>
>>7847100
Sorry, but Thor is legally not a Lord, he is an áss.
>>
>>7847078
>hurr durr my fruitloops just created a rift in time

This is what Free Will fags actually believe
>>
>>7847078
>Is the indeterminism in QM relevant to the question of free will?
There is no indeterminism in quantum mechanics. But even if there were, this would not affect the concept of free will at all.
>>
>>7847078
1 QM need not be non-deterministic (See Bohmian mechanics)
2 Classical Mechanics could just as easily be slightly non-deterministic
>>
>>7847123
>>7847126
>>7847128
so Radioactive decay is deterministic?
>>
>>7847151
Yes, it is.
>>
>>7847161
Evidence?
>>
Any indeterminism in QM, if there really is any, does not persist when atoms come together to form chemical bonds.
>>
>>7847196
Why? Something happens that filters out all the randomness?

What is it? And at what point exactly does it happen?
>>
>>7847201
Tell me what randomness you think exists in QM first.
>>
>>7847180
Go read a quantum mechanics book, man. We don't live in the 1930s anymore. Modern formulations like many-worlds and (I think) Bohmian mechanics are deterministic on the quantum level, even if it doesn't appear deterministic to entities living inside the universe. And yes, that includes radioactive decay.

In many worlds (described here because I know it well), the entire state of the universe at any time is a huge wavefunction, which behaves deterministically. If you look at the part of that wavefunction that include you, it will evolve under physics to a wavefunction that includes multiple separate more-or-less-disjoint chunks of wavefunction that correspond to you seeing radioactive decay happening at different times. This interaction as a whole is a deterministic process. Of course, to YOU, this is something you cannot predict in principle, as all possibilities will in fact happen. tl;dr This version of quantum mechanics (also known as "quantum mechanics") is fundamentally unpredictable to anything living inside the universe, while still being deterministic.

I believe something similar holds for Bohmian mechanics, though I'm much less familiar with the details thereof.
>>
>>7847078
Determinim vs nondeterminism is a separate question from the existence of free will depending on ho you define both (look up hard determinists, hard indeterminists, compatibilists, libertarians).
>>
>>7847207
How do we know it is fundamentally deterministic if according to the theory itself it will never appear that way to us?

Can we measure this/detect this some how? If not how do we know its deterministic at all?

>>7847204
Unpredictability of radioactive decay, unpredictability of the spins of entangled particles (yes I know they're always opposite but we don't know if the one we check will be up or down until we actually do the measurement).
>>
QM phenomenons are considered irrelevant to the neurals by neuroscientists.
>>
>>7847240
>How do we know it is fundamentally deterministic if according to the theory itself it will never appear that way to us?
It's the simplest known theory that explains all known observations. If you have a simpler one, please share.
>>
What modern technology would not be possible without QM? The one I've heard of is the tunneling microscope. Are there any modern everyday tech items that have only been made possible due to knowledge of QM? What i'm trying to determine is if it is actually useful for applications or is it just math wiz wanking.
>>
>>7847252
So we do experiment after experiment consistently getting random results and you're telling me the simplest answer is to just believe that its deterministic anyways? How is it not simpler to just believe what the data shows?

Also functional does it make any difference? If its true will many worlds open up a new scientific horizon? Allow us to achieve something we wouldn't be able to in a non deterministic universe?
>>
>>7847269
>So we do experiment after experiment consistently getting random results and you're telling me the simplest answer is to just believe that its deterministic anyways? How is it not simpler to just believe what the data shows?
No, that's not how it works at all.

The basic experimental results and theories of quantum mechanics require that the waveform behaves as I sketched it. That's what the Schrödinger equation describes. If you take that result, take it completely seriously without further patching, and take it to its logical conclusion, you get many worlds; and this is fully consistent with getting random results (that's what many worlds predicts). Thus, it is the simplest equation; if you take what we know must be true, and absolutely nothing else, this is called "many worlds" and predicts everything we have ever managed to measure.

We know that the Schrödinger equation and existence of the waveform must be *mostly* right, because there have been many experiments on small-scale systems where we did in fact manage to measure things precisely. The simplest theory consistent with all these results, then, is "what if the content of that equation is actually what is happening?". That's many worlds.

>Also functional does it make any difference?
It makes a difference if we want to progress in physics. If we ever want to resolve the remaining mysteries, we can't start from the basis of a silly confusion.
>>
>>7847240
>Unpredictability of radioactive decay, unpredictability of the spins of entangled particles (yes I know they're always opposite but we don't know if the one we check will be up or down until we actually do the measurement).
These things have little to no relevance to the chemical bond. I think it would be very accurate to say that whatever indeterminism exists in quantum mechanics likewise has little to no effect on the electrochemical interactions that drive the human brain. A quantum computer with an AI? Maybe in a good movie. But not us.
>>
>>7847151
Why did you respond to me? Even if there were indeterminism in the universe it would have no bearing on free will. The mechanism of Free Will necessitates that every choice a person makes creates the ultimate event in a chain of causality at an arbitrary moment in time.
>>
>>7847263
wow dude you are the first to ask this useful and insightful question! fortunately there is a website which can solve all of your problems google.com
>>
>>7847289
>>7847296

I'm not trying to say that quantum phenomena occur at the macroscopic scale, basic observation tells us they don't.

I'm just saying I have yet to hear anyone provide a satisfactory answer for why they don't. All things I've read feel very hand wavey essentially saying

>Everything is made of random crazy behaving stuff but somewhere along the way something magic happens and it stops
>>
>>7847307
Well, you could say that of almost all the questions posted on this discussion board. Why even respond with that?
>>
>>7847308
>I'm just saying I have yet to hear anyone provide a satisfactory answer for why they don't.
Then seriously, go read that quantum mechanics book. Because this is very well-understood (and exactly what the theory predicts, I might add).
>>
>>7847313
I have read about it and the details on world splitting or decoherence are pretty damn fuzzy, until they can say exactly when/how it happens I'm not convinced.

Not saying its wrong, maybe its right, but it seems like this is all still pretty unclear.
>>
If probability is true, it mean that if i will ask you ten times to cut your own throat, you will do this. Because after every my request you will be must making one of two solutions, cut or not to cut, and probability is 50/50. And it will be your free will.
check mate
>>
>>7847308
Imagine a diatomic molecule, maybe oxygen. It's vital to our existence so I think it's a good example. The bond between the two atoms is allowed to form because at typical temperatures, there is a stable state with a certain electron configuration. Now, any given second you can know that there's a probability of the electrons not being in their stable configuration. perhaps they all pile near each other and so one would think a repulsive force would drive the molecule apart. But the bond exists in the first place because it is stable, so fluctuations in energy levels or whatever tend to drive the electrons back to that stable configuration.

Really by virtue of bonds being possible, they are immune to the 'randomness' of quantum mechanics. Now that's not entirely true in all cases. Consider ammonia. The Nitrogen atom can tunnel back and forth through the hydrogen atom arrangement, but in this particular case, the molecule is the same. That's not to say quantum randomness (energy fluctuations or tunneling) cannot cause isomeric changes in larger molecules. But what you'll find is that the conditions necessary for it to happen frequently are not the conditions that the human body can supply. When you consider the very large number of molecules in a life form, the statistics make the expected events win out over the unexpected ones.
>>
Quantum probability is completely predictable by statistical method, so it is determinism by himself.
>>
>>7847304
Is this true? I am not an expert but this seems like bullshit
>>
http://strawpoll.me/6776861
>>
So if there is no free will then there is no reason I should not commit suicide right? I mean maybe you could argue its worth it to stay on the ride and enjoy the show but the thermodynamics of living are ridiculous. Suicide seems like a thoroughly logical choice to me.
>>
>>7847151
QM is not QFT
>>
>>7847375
What's the irony of this poll?
>>
>>7847474
No irony. You are just dumb
>>
>>7847456
If there's no free will you have no choice in the matter. If your going to you're going to if you're not you're not.
>>
Not really. Free will is an incoherent concept and is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism at a fundamental level.

If everything is deterministic, then everything you're ever going to do can be determined irrespective of you.

If everything is indeterministic, then you still have no power over indeterminism. Random processes don't mean "you choose the randomness".

Same goes for any combination of the two concepts.

>>7847084
Free will only exists as a way for religious loonies to try and make sense of the evil things their petty god does.
>>
>>7847456
Freewill obviously doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you should kill yourself.

You can still enjoy life, even if it is almost entirely meaningless.
>>
>>7847078
>Is the indeterminism in QM relevant to the question of free will?
No.
>how should we able to control the indeterminism?
How did you manage to fuck up philosophy so badly that you couldn't see your own ability to make decisions when it was right in front of you all along?
>>
>>7847489
>If your going to you're going to if you're not you're not.
>if
THERE! RIGHT THERE! THAT'S FREE WILL! God, how can you be so blind?
>>
>>7847505
That's just our lack of knowledge having nothing to do with free will. Same as our lack of knowledge of subconscious processes that dictate literally everything you do, before you're ever aware of them.

You're free to explain how you're free to choose something if whatever choice you think you made has already been made for you some time earlier.
>>
>>7847498
I can enjoy life? I haven't enjoyed it for 25 years and if you look at the numbers its just kind of objectively shit. Why bother "enjoying" it when you can have the equanimity of death?
>>
>>7847512
Born with a severe degenerative disease or some shit? Go take some MDMA and chill out.
>>
>>7847514
yeah its called depression (aka realizing life is a wash)
>>
>>7847524
>yeah its called depression
MDMA, DMT and LSD are your friends. Take low dosages though because depressed mentally weak persons like you tend to not take drugs too well.
>>
>>7847525
I suppose while I am a helpless life addict I may as well become an addict of a more concrete sort as well.
>>
>>7847530
I said low doses, dipshit. Life is about as necessarily a wash as drug use necessarily means addiction.
>>
>>7847263
lasers
>>
>>7847535
>missing the point

Give me another hit!
>>
>>7847511
>our lack of knowledge of subconscious processes that dictate literally everything
Never heard of it.

Reasoning from ignorance is called philosophy FYI.
>>
>>7847525
you are telling him to take drugs to delude himself that life is worth living?
>>
>>7847544
>reasoning from ignorance
Kek.

What I said was that our subconscious processes dictate our choices before we're ever aware of them. This is a fact that's proven beyond reasonable doubt by neuroscientific tests.

What I said about our lack of knowledge is that the whole idea of predicates is founded on not having complete knowledge. If we had complete knowledge, there'd be no reason for any statement regarding "if"s.

To put it simply for your little head. If the random number generated by my computer is 3, then it does x, and if it's not 3, it does y, is not "what free will is" unless you're going as far as to say that literally everything has free will.
>>
>>7847549
>delude
Nah, just to show that there's ways to enjoy it. The guy said he gets no enjoyment from life.
>>
>>7847557
its not like I can spend the rest of my natural life in a drug addled stupor. Believe me I would. I thought Brave New World was a utopia
>>
>>7847564
>drug addled stupor
So apparently you're not only depressed, but uneducated. There's nothing addled about microdosing drugs.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/microdosing-new-low-key-way-use-psychedelics
>>
>>7847569
at any rate I lack the resources to get high on MDMA regularly
>>
>>7847575
>he can't buy 1/10th or less of a pill a day
African tribe general?
>>
>>7847554
I know what you said. I just don't find it valid.

Literally everything has free will. Because magic. But I know magic won't be welcome on this board until it can be safely and properly verified. I'm even addressing this from a purely material philosophy; the fact that you can't decide, in advance, whether or not something will go one way or the other *IS* the feeling of free will. We are literally living balls of pure uncertainty, with feelings and intuition to match.

The existence of "sub"conscious processes does NOT rob ""conscious processes of any free will. Having a mechanism for the manifestation of free will does NOT degrade the "quality" of decisions. A decision is literally decided no matter which way it's decided. The fact that we have words like "if" is direct evidence of a universal uncertainty that was tractable enough in our psychological evolution that we latched on to the idea and made a meme out of it. (Words are the most primitive form of meme; I do apologize for using a buzzword. It just happens to be correct in this case.)
>>
>>7847581
I have no idea where the fuck to buy it to begin with. My real question is if life is so great shouldn't it be generally enjoyable on its own?
>>
>>7847587
>I know what you said. I just don't find it valid.
That's not a surprise, you admit yourself you're into magical thinking.

>Literally everything has free will. Because magic.
Is there a difference between the free will of a rock and the free will of a human? What, then, is your definition of free will, and what wouldn't have it?

>The existence of "sub"conscious processes does NOT rob ""conscious processes of any free will.
Well under the assumption that everything has a free will, it doesn't. I'm still wondering what the use of such a term is, and what it means in that case.

>Having a mechanism for the manifestation of free will does NOT degrade the "quality" of decisions.
The quality of the choices is 100% irrelevant.

>A decision is literally decided no matter which way it's decided.
Not even necessarily true. Decision making is a necessarily temporal action, and given the interpretation of any form of deterministic physics, where any single state of the universe defines all other states, "decision" as a concept loses meaning.

>The fact that we have words like "if" is direct evidence of a universal uncertainty that was tractable enough in our psychological evolution that we latched on to the idea and made a meme out of it.
Yes, the word "if" is evidence of uncertainty. That's what I said. It's a manifestation of us not having complete knowledge. If that's all it takes for you to shoehorn in free will, then anything we have complete knowledge of has no free will.
>>
>>7847593
Life is supremely unfair, but it's more than easy to enjoy it. Moping around that it's meaningless is meaningless in itself, might as well enjoy yourself.

>I have no idea where the fuck to buy it to begin with.
Are you aware where you are? There's a fuckload of people on 4chan who know where you can get drugs anywhere on this planet.
>>
>>7847612
I might as well kill myself you mean. I think we can agree there is no reason NOT to an hero even though it may not be necessary to do so. It is as valid a solution to the banality of life as any.
>>
>>7847078
No, free will doesn't exist, and if it existed it would have no direct relation to any indeterminism of QM.

Free will was / is defined for being above the molecular level. You cannot actively 'will' your body into stopping its functionality on a molecular level. You can only exert external actions on these ( beneficial and / harmful) e.g. commit suicide.
>>
>>7847612
>it's more than easy to enjoy it.
That is, as a general rule. If you're born all fucked up, then you drew the short end of the stick.
>>
>>7847617
Or you can enjoy yourself. That depends on what you value.
>>
>>7847622
How do values enter into it? If I kill myself its a calculation that the net "enjoyment" I will experience over the course of my life will not be equitable when weighed against an early death.
>>
>>7847626
They enter into your thought processes. If all you're doing is sitting around moping all day, there's no wonder you think you should an hero. Just pick one, either understand that moping isn't going to change shit and an hero, or go ahead and try new stuff. Maybe you'll enjoy yourself, maybe you won't.
>>
I'm getting sick of coming to this board and seeing these meme threads.

For starters: QM is wrong. Everything is predetermined. All data provided by QM can be interpreted differently once you understand spacetime and force correctly.

Secondly, free will clearly has a duality. On one hand, chemistry tells us that our decisions are already made before we consciously make them. Furthermore, under a predetermined universe there is always an ultimate outcome.

On the other hand we have no conscious control over these factors and for all intents and purposes we can not see the future. Our survival or extinction depends on our ability to predict the future, so free will is our survival mechanism.

Overall, who gives a shit you're all kiddies anyway. I'm getting too old for this board.
>>
>>7847628
my thought process is yes I could "just get out of your comfort zone bro" or I could kill myself but there is no room for "values" in that decision because it just comes down to the raw data. If I don't believe the new experiences can counteract the negative in the offing then death seems preferable. If I don't have free will then my imagined "values" are irrelevant. There is no room for existentialist woowoo when you are just a subject of contingent events. The only reasonable thing is to weigh the variables.
>>
>>7847632
Values factor into it because you clearly don't value life, just not enough to go through with it.

>If I don't believe the new experiences can counteract the negative in the offing then death seems preferable.
And why would you not believe this?

> If I don't have free will then my imagined "values" are irrelevant.
On the contrary. Values exist as brain states, and they dictate your future. Free will doesn't factor into literally anything but religious apologetics and is completely irrelevant to human decision making.
>>
>>7847635
there is no reason to value life. Its a silly pain in the ass for a lot of people. There is no significance to ending it besides avoiding all the shitty little things that happen in it
>>
>>7847605
>you're into magical thinking.
Damn straight I am. Thinking is wonderful. I can't imagine why I would limit myself to reason unless there was a discrete reason to do so.
>Is there a difference between the free will of a rock and the free will of a human?
Yes, explicitly. It's "chosen"(passively) to manifest itself as a rock, while you find it more enjoyable or robust to become a human every single tick of the clock. Under a paradigm of magic, everything that currently exists is made manifest via magical will, so literally everything has 'free' will. The problem is more defining the trait of 'free' in regard to will than anything else; decisions are, by definition, decided.

>anything we have complete knowledge of has no free will
Yes! That's actually transcosmologically correct. If you have perfect mathematical control over a type of system, you've literally robbed that system of all meaning/beauty. This is the common outcome of a forced "love" spell; the caster no longer feels loved because they know the love isn't coming from the actual person; it's coming from the composition of that person and the influence of the love spell.

(Where "transcosmological" roughly translates to "psychological.")

>"decision" as a concept loses meaning
I disagree! When you define the decision making process with sufficient scrutiny, you in no way rob it of its power to make decisions. If we were to put decision in proper thermodynamic terms, we'd say it was something that directed energy gradients in a reverse entropic manner. Since something like heat transfer isn't a decision, we have a clear way to begin differentiating between causal structures in our hypothetical closed system.
>>
>>7847636
>humor
>irony
>drama
>not reasons to value life
Okay, back to oblivion with you.

>Yes, explicitly. It's "chosen"(passively) to manifest itself as a rock, while you find it more enjoyable or robust to become a human every single tick of the clock. Under a paradigm of magic, everything that currently exists is made manifest via magical will, so literally everything has 'free' will. The problem is more defining the trait of 'free' in regard to will than anything else; decisions are, by definition, decided.
That's interesting. What is the mechanism of choosing you're talking about here?

>Yes! That's actually transcosmologically correct. If you have perfect mathematical control over a type of system, you've literally robbed that system of all meaning/beauty. This is the common outcome of a forced "love" spell; the caster no longer feels loved because they know the love isn't coming from the actual person; it's coming from the composition of that person and the influence of the love spell.

I don't need perfect mathematical control. A system has to be only in principle knowable, and not known. If x is true, it's true whether I know it or not.

Did you seriously start talking about love spells?

>I disagree! When you define the decision making process with sufficient scrutiny, you in no way rob it of its power to make decisions. If we were to put decision in proper thermodynamic terms, we'd say it was something that directed energy gradients in a reverse entropic manner. Since something like heat transfer isn't a decision, we have a clear way to begin differentiating between causal structures in our hypothetical closed system.

Again, you ignore that decision making is a NECESSARILY temporal process. I.e. decision making processes predate decision predate outcome. If we simply reverse the arrow of time, decisions lose all of their meaning because they happen after their outcome, i.e. they are not decisions at all.

Still waiting for your definition of decision.
>>
>>7847637
The other thing you ignored is that a deterministic universe need not exist temporally in the first place. All you need is its value at one point in time, and you can simply calculate its value at any other arbitrary point in time, forgoing any process that would "happen in between".
>>
>>7847654
Yes, timeless preset worlds don't actually have inner free will, but we have no reason to believe the universe is computable or deterministic/fatal. Even under time-crystalline reasoning, you'll still want to have some form of structure to your timeless world or it'll end up being functionally equivalent to the white void. The "act" of "adding" structure to the crystal is the "decision" point of a closed system.

Free will enters into a time crystal the moment a being with sufficient influence over the structure of the crystal enters in the crystal. That's what I was getting at with defining "decision" as anti-entropic; prior to your entry into a timeless closed system, its contents exist in a state of total heat death.

Thermodynamics was literally made to deal with the distinction between timeless (closed) systems and worlds with uncertain/unknown/immeasurable characteristics. Uncertainty IS evidence, when we ask whether a system is thermodynamic or not.
>>7847650
>What is the mechanism of choosing you're talking about here?
Magic. Manifestation. Existence. It all collapses in definition when you suppose magic plays a role in generating causes. In the case of a 'magic' rock, it made the 'decision' to be a rock by simply being a rock. I don't like defining 'decision' under magical contexts because it becomes massively complex. I tend to stick to materialist reasoning when trying to explain how will can be noted as "free."

The TL;DR is that a rock is timelessly a rock, ie., it has the "soul" of a rock. (So it "naturally" chose to be a rock at every point in its continuum.)

>Did you seriously start talking about love spells?
Only because it was relevant. (And because people keep asking about them on /x/ I guess.)

Okay. At this point we need to differentiate free decision and defiant/forced decisions. Supposing I view the entire physical universe from a crystalline time perspective, I could see your response to my post and adjust the content of my post to
>>
>>7847678
how can you people be this stupid
holy crap
reply to stuff you like and ignore stuff you don't like? enjoy your shit-throwing competition
>>
>>7847678
>Yes, timeless preset worlds don't actually have inner free will, but we have no reason to believe the universe is computable or deterministic/fatal.
The fact that we can predict shit is plenty of reason. You have no reason to assume the opposite.

The rest is magic garbage I'm tired of rebuking.

Back to your containment board, magic man. >>>/x/
>>
>>7847678
...design/"predestine" (some of) the contents of your reply. Let's call it perfect prediction; I know what you'll do no matter how "defiant" you try to be. You have perfect power to decide, but because I have perfect power to predict, so we end up in an >>7845474 scenario. If you decide to sit silently and try to work out how to "outwit" my prediction, I can only "wait" for you to decide something so I can prove I knew it in advance. Iterating infinitely, we'd converge on the mirror game rather than the defiance game. So,
>A system has to be only in principle knowable
...is wrong. My ability to predict your decision in no way robs you of your power to decide. It's still just as defiant as ever, but whether or not that trait comes into play only matters if I'm trying to predict you perfectly. Knowledge-in-advance, even to the point of perfect prediction doesn't rob you of your power to decide. I still have to react, within my prediction network, to the unique way that you make decisions.

>decision making processes predate decision predate outcome
Yes, but the decision is still made, even if it came about through a temporal decision-making-process.

Contrarily, if you say the decision doesn't exist, or "wasn't actually made," you're saying that there is no decision making process. The fact that we can call it a decision is what makes us call it a decision. It's sort of an axiomatic non-definition in that sense; each decision is own definition of the decision being made. A decision making process with enough specificity is just a mathematical representation of a definition solver.

>Still waiting for your definition of decision.
This was my first attempt:
>in proper thermodynamic terms, we'd say it was something that directed energy gradients in a reverse entropic manner.
"Decisions are timeless axioms in a causal system" is my second attempt. We can converge on both, one, the other, or neither, as you prefer.
>>7847679
This is my definition of a good time?
>>
>>7847682
>The fact that we can predict shit is plenty of reason.
Not at all. For every thing science has been able to predict so far, there are 20 causal mechanisms that it simply hasn't noticed exist, let alone studied or attempted to model or understand. I'm not even talking about anything paranormal or supernatural here; I'm talking about physical things in the natural world. This isn't even related to the epistemic claim that we haven't formulated a self-contained and consistent unified field theory. Human science isn't even a fraction of the way to predictive omniscience. Being able to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow says NOTHING about whether or not either the Earth or the sun is a closed (thermodynamic) system.
>>
File: 98.png (39 KB, 202x132) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
98.png
39 KB, 202x132
If we dont have free will, mb galaxy have it? Can you proof me wrong?
>>
>>7847690
> there are 20 causal mechanisms that it simply hasn't noticed exist,
Assumption.

> Human science isn't even a fraction of the way to predictive omniscience.
Assumption.

See, these are things you have to prove and not just assume. The fact that we can predict stuff is in fact evidence that the universe is in principle predictable. Argument from ignorance is not evidence to the contrary.

>Being able to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow says NOTHING about whether or not either the Earth or the sun is a closed (thermodynamic) system.
I'm really sick and tired of the vapid attempts at christfags and other loonies using thermodynamics to define things into existence.

Back to >>>/x/. There's plenty of people there who have equally grounded non-theories and baseless conjectures that you do.
>>
>>7847702
>See, these are things you have to prove and not just assume.
They aren't. You, if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion aren't allowed to assume that science is already omniscient. People work around the clock to create quantum computers and quantum-informed simulations of the early universe. To say we can predict even so much as half of the phenomenological world is a slap in the face to theoretical physicists, applied physics and life sciences everywhere.
>The fact that we can predict stuff is in fact evidence
Ohhh, I see what you meant to say now. Yes, we have evidence of universe-time prediction. This is evidence that prediction is occasionally possible in this universe. But "evidence" in a vacuum isn't enough of a basis to make predictions about the entire causal structure of the universe. Without an example of a predicted thing, I can't analyze your argument in enough depth to proper refute it.
>the universe is in principle predictable.
>in principle
That, I agree with. In principle. Pending a decent definition of "principle," of course. I don't mean to be difficult, I just come from a board full of weasels who abuse definitions worse than the literal Fae do.

What I MEANT to say was that I don't have any personal evidence that the universe tends towards a phenomenologically convergent outcome. It feels like we'll have trillions of years before heat death. I don't really care to prove the free will argument to you *right now,* I'm just trying to build a way for us to discuss it more effectively at a later date. I just mean to discuss it, I don't really feel an obligation to an opinion right now. Sorry if that was unclear.
>>
>>7847078
i don't think so
even if quantum mechanics means events happen fundamentally randomly, you're still not in control of them
>>
The only way free will would make any sense assuming either determinism or indeterminism is through some barrier where those concepts stop being valid and outside that you'd have some input which is your "soul" or consciousness. Seems rather strange. I can understand why people would like to believe that though.
>>
we will never know if an event is truly random or has a predetermined outcome since we have no way to repeat two events exactly the same to observe whether the outcomes will be different or not, we can only speculate.

And free will has nothing to do with determinism.
>>
File: shit.jpg (13 KB, 521x341) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
shit.jpg
13 KB, 521x341
>>7847078
>also: general free will thread, old one is 404
THIS IS THE CANCER THAT'S KILLING /sci/.
"Free Will" is philosophy, NOT "science and math", AND we never say anything new, just the same old shit, thread after thread. So why in the FUCK do you think we need a new one?
>>
It's Irrelevant since indeterminism doesn't mean that humans determine QM behavior.
Random will =/= free will
>>
>>7849368
We don't really have a philosophy board though. Or is that >>>/x/ ? I hate /x/.
>>
File: 568439.jpg (6 KB, 250x241) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
568439.jpg
6 KB, 250x241
>it's yet another pseudo-philosophy free will thread on a fucking SCIENCE BOARD
>>
Free wil is just a tool like law.
>>
>>7847727
Nevermind. My argument just converges on this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ruth_chang_how_to_make_hard_choices
>>
>>7849393
That is /x/, yes. Falls under unexplained mystery.
>>
>>7849393
/his/ is now the philosophy board de jure.
>>
>>7850123
That's not what they said last time I was there.
Thread replies: 98
Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 513305



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.