• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free will and determinism

Can the two statements 1. and 2. as set out in this post be true about one person?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 26.3%

  • No

    Votes: 20 52.6%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • On Planet X nothing is true.

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • Total voters
    38
Leumas said:
Why have you not responded to this post proving the statement in your above post arrantly wrong?
Click to expand...


Because I don't care whether or not you think you were wrong when you made that statement that was wrong. My goal was to point out that it was wrong, and I have done so. I explained why you were wrong in a single sentence (beginning "All interpretations of QM...") that you keep quoting, which accurately describes the status of the science and which your quoted passages do not contradict in any way.
 
Myriad said:
Because I don't care whether or not you think you were wrong when you made that statement that was wrong. My goal was to point out that it was wrong, and I have done so. I explained why you were wrong in a single sentence (beginning "All interpretations of QM...") that you keep quoting, which accurately describes the status of the science and which your quoted passages do not contradict in any way.
Click to expand...


So... you think that randomness does not exist... and that the Uncertainty Principle is all about measuring rods not being accurate enough and that a Gazillion universes split off from the other gazillion universes every time a particle interacts with another.... and that is the reason you believe in the illusion called "free-will" whatever that might be.

OK I get it now.... thanks for the clarification.

But unfortunately ... you are quite simply and directly wrong... on all counts ... and quite definitively wrong about me being wrong as has been proven already in this post.... QED!!!


Myriad said:
.... your quoted passages do not contradict in any way.
Click to expand...


You obviously have not read what they are saying properly and carefully... they irrefragably validate what I was saying.... had you done so you would not fail to realize that you are quite simply and directly wrong of course.



.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Yes, as long as you can't predict the outcome. That's what "random" means, isn't it ?
Click to expand...
One possible definition of "random" is the inability to control or predict the outcome of an event.

However you are using the word in two different ways. In the case of a coin toss, it is simply a lack of information about the forces involved that causes us to use statistical models instead. But in the case of QM, your argument is that there are actual random forces operating at the quantum level.
 
Has anyone (not just on this forum) ever said how QM fits into the idea of free-will, outside of the notion that "free-will isn't consistent with a deterministic universe so we need a nondeterministic universe"?

Does it even make sense in context of free-will? What do random/QM events have to do with "will", much less free-will?
 
GDon said:
Has anyone (not just on this forum) ever said how QM fits into the idea of free-will, outside of the notion that "free-will isn't consistent with a deterministic universe so we need a nondeterministic universe"?

Does it even make sense in context of free-will? What do random/QM events have to do with "will", much less free-will?
Click to expand...
All we can say is that in a deterministic universe, there is no room for free will. We don't know that free will would exist in a non-deterministic universe. We don't even know if the universe is non-deterministic (QM formulas not withstanding).
 
psionl0 said:
All we can say is that in a deterministic universe, there is no room for free will.
Click to expand...
That's a statement that I've never seen justified, without referring back to itself.

psionl0 said:
We don't know that free will would exist in a non-deterministic universe.
Click to expand...
That I understand. I'd say it wouldn't, since random events can't support free-will. Free-will only makes sense in a deterministic universe (at least to me! :) )
 
GDon said:
That's a statement that I've never seen justified, without referring back to itself.
Click to expand...
It makes sense if you consider "deterministic" to mean that everything is pre-programmed.

GDon said:
That I understand. I'd say it wouldn't, since random events can't support free-will. Free-will only makes sense in a deterministic universe (at least to me! :) )
Click to expand...
Non-deterministic doesn't necessarily mean controlled by random events. We don't even know if random events exist.
 
psionl0 said:
One possible definition of "random" is the inability to control or predict the outcome of an event.

However you are using the word in two different ways. In the case of a coin toss, it is simply a lack of information about the forces involved that causes us to use statistical models instead. But in the case of QM, your argument is that there are actual random forces operating at the quantum level.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say there are random forces operating because we can't predict them in other ways than statistically.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Yes, I'd say there are random forces operating because we can't predict them in other ways than statistically.
Click to expand...
We might not be able to measure these forces but that doesn't mean that there is some magical random force at play. It just means that (like the coin) we only have statistical methods to analyze the system.
 
psionl0 said:
We might not be able to measure these forces but that doesn't mean that there is some magical random force at play. It just means that (like the coin) we only have statistical methods to analyze the system.
Click to expand...

Why magic ? At current level of knowledge it seems random. That's why we call it random. Why would random be any less possible than not-random ?
 
psionl0 said:
Are you using the same argument in the case of a coin toss?
Click to expand...

Sounds more like the distinction between existential and practical to me.

Whether or not randomness can actually exist if one were effectively omniscient, that we are not even remotely close leaves a lot of wiggle room to call events that we are unable to determine the outcome of in advance with sufficient certainty "random."
 
Aridas said:
Sounds more like the distinction between existential and practical to me.

Whether or not randomness can actually exist if one were effectively omniscient, that we are not even remotely close leaves a lot of wiggle room to call events that we are unable to determine the outcome of in advance with sufficient certainty "random."
Click to expand...
The problem is that there are two definitions of "random" that are being used interchangeably.

There is the "pseudo" random which is not really random but because we don't have instruments that can measure all of the forces accurately enough, we assume "randomness" so that we can make computations.

Then there is the "true" random where the forces are not only immeasurable, but even if we could measure them, we would get a different result every time. Some people say that QM is about "truly random" forces but I have not seen a proof of this.
 
Aridas said:
Sounds more like the distinction between existential and practical to me.

Whether or not randomness can actually exist if one were effectively omniscient, that we are not even remotely close leaves a lot of wiggle room to call events that we are unable to determine the outcome of in advance with sufficient certainty "random."
Click to expand...


And that is the whole point of insisting that there isn't randomness and that the universe is deterministic... so as to leave a gap for the omniscient Jabberwocky to know where the vanishing Cheshire Cat went to.... even if we do not know where... the omniscient Jabberwocky assuredly cannot be befuddled by the mere "random" vanishings of a Cheshire cat... can he?

All one needs to see randomness that even an omniscient Jabberwocky cannot ascertain for certain... is go to a Halloween Store... and buy one of those luminescent costumes and see it glow in the dark.... or... make a good hot cup of tea and drip a smidgen of milk in it and watch that... or turn the FM or AM radio set onto a channel that has no station on it and listen to that white noise... or wait for a tornado or hurricane or lightning and watch those... or get a good Geiger counter and listen to that... or go to the nearest whitewater river and sit at the bank and watch the water flow there... or go sunbathing and see if skin cancer will be the result or not.... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Anyone who cannot see how this stuff is randomness that even an omniscient Jabberwocky cannot ascertain for certain.... is only refusing to see it.... that's all.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Why magic ? At current level of knowledge it seems random. That's why we call it random. Why would random be any less possible than not-random ?
Click to expand...


At what level of knowledge will it cease seeming to be random???
 
GDon said:
...
That I understand. I'd say it wouldn't, since random events can't support free-will. Free-will only makes sense in a deterministic universe (at least to me! :) )
Click to expand...


Deterministic means it has no degrees of freedom in outcome.... do you see the problem there for a "free" will?


GDon said:
...
That I understand. I'd say it wouldn't, since random events can't support free-will....
Click to expand...


And you would be right....


So whether reality is deterministic or indeterministic... there is no "free" will....


Have you done the experiment described in this post... it will prove for you that the human brain is not even capable to freely will to see reality for what it is.




.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
The problem is that there are two definitions of "random" that are being used interchangeably.

There is the "pseudo" random which is not really random but because we don't have instruments that can measure all of the forces accurately enough, we assume "randomness" so that we can make computations.

Then there is the "true" random where the forces are not only immeasurable, but even if we could measure them, we would get a different result every time. Some people say that QM is about "truly random" forces but I have not seen a proof of this.
Click to expand...

IMHO we can't test which one of these it is .. so it's irrelevant .. I'm not making the distinction. I use "random" as simply "I don't know what will come next".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom