Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.

Are you denying that Quantum Physics has been proven true???

What do you mean by "true"? If you mean that no other theory (now or in the future) could give the same answers that QM theory gives then the answer is "yes".

Wow.... amazing.... QED!!!

Let me ask you... what information will one need to determine the result of a lottery draw... before it is drawn??? ... other than being god that is....

 

[Roboramma]

Yes... as I said.... unfalsifiable woo woo ... legerdemain of the imagination ... can be made to fit anything....

No more than under any other interpretation.
Let's say you arrange an electron in a state before you measure it such that its spin is 99% up and 1% down. Every interpretation says that when you measure it the result could be down. And they all agree that the amplitude of the wave function is more higher for spin up than down.
The measurement outcomes predicted by Everett are the same as the measurement outcomes predicted by Copenhagen. Statistically significant deviation from those predictions would falsify Everett, in the same way it would falsify Copenhagen.

If one says that there are multiple versions of the universe and the casino has to pay out a losing bet because the other versions won... then ... well... this is nonsense.

On the branches of the wave function where you lost the bet, the casino doesn't pay out, on the branches of the wave function where you won the bet, it does.

Once those branches have decohered nothing that happens on one affects the others, so the fact that there's a branch where you won doesn't have anything to do with what the casino in this branch should do.

 

[Leumas]

No more than under any other interpretation.
Let's say you arrange an electron in a state before you measure it such that its spin is 99% up and 1% down. Every interpretation says that when you measure it the result could be down. And they all agree that the amplitude of the wave function is more higher for spin up than down.
The measurement outcomes predicted by Everett are the same as the measurement outcomes predicted by Copenhagen. Statistically significant deviation from those predictions would falsify Everett, in the same way it would falsify Copenhagen.

On the branches of the wave function where you lost the bet, the casino doesn't pay out, on the branches of the wave function where you won the bet, it does.

Once those branches have decohered nothing that happens on one affects the others, so the fact that there's a branch where you won doesn't have anything to do with what the casino in this branch should do.

Yes... as I said... unfalsifiable woo woo .... in the imagination everything is possible... including the nonexistence of randomness and multiple universes with copies of one where one always wins the roulette spin... uh huh...

Meanwhile... in the real world of reality where randomness exists and one loses the roulette spin... Quantum Physics is a real practical science that has proven its worth in multiple fields that have made human life better than any imagination could imagine... without multiple universes to contend with.

Quantum applications today... or from here... or from here..

• MRI scanners for medical imaging
• Lasers
• Solar cells
• Electron microscopes
• Atomic clocks used for GPS
• Electronics
• Telecommunication
• Cryptography
• Fluorescent Light
• Computer & Mobile Phone
• Biological Compass

And in the case of randomness... have you ever heard of these fields of knowledge

• Genetics
• Information Science
• Finance
• Political Science
• Cryptography
• Game theory
• Quantum mechanics
• Chaos theory
• Statistics
• Pattern recognition

If you still doubt randomness is real.... read this... it might help prove it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Myriad]

Yes... as I said... unfalsifiable woo woo .... in the imagination everything is possible... including the nonexistence of randomness and multiple universes with copies of one where one always wins the roulette spin... uh huh...

You are quite simply and directly wrong about this. All interpretations of QM are consistent with all known predictions of QM, all known experimental results of QM, and all technologies that make use of QM.

 

[steenkh]

Isn’t the point here that randomness implies indeterminism, but indeterminism does not imply randomness?

 

[wea]

...no local hidden variables. Even Bohemian Mechanics is ...

Bohmian </nitpick>

 

[Leumas]

You are quite simply and directly wrong about this. All interpretations of QM are consistent with all known predictions of QM, all known experimental results of QM, and all technologies that make use of QM.

No... you are quite definitively wrong about me being wrong.... Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems

The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. But this “many-worlds interpretation” is incoherent, Philip Ball argues in this adapted excerpt from his new book Beyond Weird....

The MWI illustrates just how peculiarly quantum theory forces us to think. It is an intensely controversial view. Arguments about the interpretation of quantum mechanics are noted for their passion, as disagreements that can’t be settled by objective evidence are wont to be. But when the MWI is in the picture, those passions can become so extreme that we must suspect a great deal more invested in the matter than simply the resolution of a scientific puzzle.....

At first glance, the many-worlds interpretation looks like a delightfully simple answer to that mysterious vanishing act. It says that none of the states vanishes at all, except to our perception. It says, in essence, let’s just do away with wave function collapse altogether....

...Once begun, this process of duplication seems to have no end: you have to erect an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wave function collapse, but at the expense of making another universe. The theory doesn’t exactly predict the other universe in the way that scientific theories usually make predictions. It’s just a deduction from the hypothesis that the other electron path is real too....

You can probably see why the MWI is the interpretation of quantum mechanics that wins all the glamour and publicity. It tells us that we have multiple selves, living other lives in other universes, quite possibly doing all the things that we dream of but will never achieve (or never dare to attempt). There is no path not taken. For every tragedy, like Gwyneth Paltrow’s character being hit by a van in the many-worlds-inspired 1998 movie Sliding Doors, there is salvation and triumph.

Who could resist that idea?

My own view is that the problems with the MWI are overwhelming — not because they show it must be wrong, but because they render it incoherent. It simply cannot be articulated meaningfully....

And it seems I am in very good company when I say it is unfalsifiable....

Some scientists consider MWI unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them. Others claim MWI is directly testable.

Roger Penrose argues that the idea is flawed....

Philosopher of science Robert P. Crease says that the MWI is "one of the most implausible and unrealistic ideas in the history of science" .....

Theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft also dismisses the idea: "I do not believe that we have to live with the many-worlds interpretation. Indeed, it would be a stupendous number of parallel worlds, which are only there because physicists couldn't decide which of them is real."

Asher Peres was an outspoken critic of MWI. A section of his 1993 textbook had the title Everett's interpretation and other bizarre theories. Peres argued that the various many-worlds interpretations merely shift the arbitrariness or vagueness of the collapse postulate to the question of when "worlds" can be regarded as separate, and that no objective criterion for that separation can actually be formulated.....

 

[Myriad]

No... you are quite definitively wrong about me being wrong.... Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems


Contradiction of quantum predictions, experiments, or technology is not among those problems. The universe is not constrained by anyone's ability to articulate it meaningfully.

And it seems I am in very good company when I say it is unfalsifiable....

All of the multiple interpretations of QM are unfalsifiable with respect to one another. Otherwise there wouldn't be multiple interpretations.

Everett is the most parsimonious interpretation. The wave function evolves according to the wave equation. Period. No collapse postulate or inherent randomness. Your sources are essentially arguing that it's also the most difficult to apply to our experiences, but why expect that to be easy? It's consistent with all the results of our experiments, which is as much as any interpretation can claim.

 

[Leumas]

All of the multiple interpretations of QM are unfalsifiable with respect to one another. Otherwise there wouldn't be multiple interpretations.

Everett is the most parsimonious interpretation. The wave function evolves according to the wave equation. Period. No collapse postulate or inherent randomness. Your sources are essentially arguing that it's also the most difficult to apply to our experiences, but why expect that to be easy? It's consistent with all the results of our experiments, which is as much as any interpretation can claim.

Hahaha.... nope!!

Having multiple universes split out of one universe every time a particle interacts with another is the antithesis of parsimonious.


Nevertheless... can you now see how you are most definitively wrong about me being wrong as evinced by FACTS?

 

[Myriad]

Hahaha.... nope!!

Having multiple universes split out of one universe every time a particle interacts with another is the antithesis of parsimonious.

That's what the wave equation predicts happens. You know, that equation that all those wonderful technologies you listed depend upon its predictions being accurate. You have to add something to it (such as wave function collapse) to predict for it not to happen, without any observational evidence that that's necessary (that is, no evidence that it doesn't actually happen). That's not parsimonious.

 

[Leumas]

<snip>

Do you agree that there is no randomness??

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.

 

[Leumas]

That's what the wave equation predicts happens. You know, that equation that all those wonderful technologies you listed depend upon its predictions being accurate. You have to add something to it (such as wave function collapse) to predict for it not to happen, without any observational evidence that that's necessary (that is, no evidence that it doesn't actually happen). That's not parsimonious.

Do you think all this is evidence for a deterministic or an indeterministic universe??

And which one... out of the gazillions that split off from the gazillions of universes that split off from the gazillion universes etc. etc. .... every time a particle interacts with another every single time every single moment???


And... are you going to admit that you are most assuredly wrong about me being wrong or not... you cannot just state wrong things and when proven wrong just carry on moving the goal posts... admit it!!!




.

 

[steenkh]

Having multiple universes split out of one universe every time a particle interacts with another is the antithesis of parsimonious.

Sean Carroll argues in The Arrow of Time that the MWI is misunderstood: only one of the worlds actually exists, the others are merely possibilities, and when we make a measurement, we find out which one is the real one.

 

[Leumas]

Sean Carroll argues in The Arrow of Time that the MWI is misunderstood: only one of the worlds actually exists, the others are merely possibilities, and when we make a measurement, we find out which one is the real one.

And all the others vanish like the Cheshire Cat???

And what is Sean Carroll's opinion after looking at it through the Looking Glass... does he conclude that there is no randomness???

And does Sean Carroll ever admit when he is wrong??? Or does he just go hunting for snarks instead??

Moreover... What do YOU think... do you think there is randomness or not??

And do YOU think Everett's Mad Hatter hypothesis implies an indeterministic universe or is it all set in stone despite not knowing which world is the real world out of gazillion phantasmagorical possible realities until some particles interact with each other... even absent any observer or humans altogether... or is there a Jabberwocky outside this Queen Of Heart's Realm observing all the time and bringing about a deterministic "reality" where Humpty Dumpty never falls off a wall because he wins all the coin tosses and all the Roulette table spins because he can bring all the factors together again???

 

[psionl0]

It provides the mathematical and later experiments the empirical evidence of the underpinnings behind what you consider are "assumptions".

So how does it prove that randomness is an actual thing? Is it just because the formulas predict behaviour that you conclude that randomness is real?

 

[psionl0]

Let me ask you... what information will one need to determine the result of a lottery draw... before it is drawn??? ... other than being god that is....

If you are drawing balls out of a barrel then (like the coin toss) a whole bunch of different forces interact to determine the number that is drawn (one of these is NOT a random force). Of course, we can't measure these forces so the ball drawn appears to be random.

What did you think was happening? Magic?

 

[Leumas]

So how does it prove that randomness is an actual thing? Is it just because the formulas predict behaviour that you conclude that randomness is real?

Do you know what that word means?

 

[steenkh]

And all the others vanish like the Cheshire Cat???

I believe the point was that they did not exist.

And what is Sean Carroll's opinion after looking at it through the Looking Glass... does he conclude that there is no randomness???

Nothing is changed here: which world exist out of the possible worlds is as random as it always were. The physics is the same, it is only how to understand it that is different.

And does Sean Carroll ever admit when he is wrong??? Or does he just go hunting for snarks instead??

I don’t understand the question. Wrong about what? Or were you just making a joke with a word play on the similarity of his name to the well-known author.

Moreover... What do YOU think... do you think there is randomness or not??

Yes, there is randomness as far as we can tell.

And do YOU think Everett's Mad Hatter hypothesis implies an indeterministic universe or is it all set in stone despite not knowing which world is the real world out of gazillion phantasmagorical possible realities until some particles interact with each other... even absent any observer or humans altogether... or is there a Jabberwocky outside this Queen Of Heart's Realm observing all the time and bringing about a deterministic "reality" where Humpty Dumpty never falls off a wall because he wins all the coin tosses and all the Roulette table spins because he can bring all the factors together again???

More witticism, right?

 

[Leumas]

What did you think was happening? Magic?

You tell me... does the stuff described in the posts below sound like magic or not?

The Everett Interpretation is consistent with determinism. The wave function just evolves, deterministically, over time.

Other interpretations include randomness when deciding which branches of the wave function are real, for instance, but QM is consistent with both viewpoints.

To make it perhaps more clear: when you do a measurement you get one outcome out of (perhaps) many possible outcomes. How does the universe determine which of those outcomes you get? Under Copenhagen it really is true randomness, nothing determines it, but the various results come up probabilistically as given by the value of the wave function. Under Everett every result comes up, just different versions of you record those measurements.

• Plaintiff's Lawyer: Your honor the Casino has cheated my client.... he won the Roulette Table spin
• Defense Lawyer: Your honor the plaintiff placed a bet on #25 and the spin settled on #17... he did not win at all.
• Plaintiff's Lawyer: Your honor under Everett every result comes up, just different versions of my client recorded the result... and so one of the versions of my client WON... and thus the Casino has to pay out.
• Judge: fuggedaboutitt wiseguy... getoutohere

And that casino did pay out. You clearly don't understand Everett, or QM in general.

...
On the branches of the wave function where you lost the bet, the casino doesn't pay out, on the branches of the wave function where you won the bet, it does.

Once those branches have decohered nothing that happens on one affects the others, so the fact that there's a branch where you won doesn't have anything to do with what the casino in this branch should do.

Sean Carroll argues in The Arrow of Time that the MWI is misunderstood: only one of the worlds actually exists, the others are merely possibilities, and when we make a measurement, we find out which one is the real one.

And when you say....

If you are drawing balls out of a barrel then (like the coin toss) a whole bunch of different forces interact to determine the number that is drawn (one of these is NOT a random force). Of course, we can't measure these forces so the ball drawn appears to be random.

In which version of the gazillion worlds mentioned in the posts above did you choose to ascertain all the variables and forces so as to eliminate randomness of the lottery draw... and how did you assure that, that world came up instead of all the others???

Of course, we can't measure these forces so the ball drawn appears to be random.

So if there are a gazillion possible universes each of which requires that you measure forces that you cannot possibly measure... how is it only an appearance of randomness???

Can you define these words

• random
• probability
• certainty
• uncertainty
• indeterminable
• determinable
• possibility
• impossibility

Here let me see if your own words can help.... also please read this post and this one.... and this one

Of course, we can't measure these forces so the ball drawn...

...
When I refer to "lack of knowledge" I mean the inability to measure the exact state of each particle in the universe. ....

...
Of course, we have no way to test if the universe is deterministic or not because our knowledge is not perfect.

We may never know if the universe is deterministic or not.

Of course, we have no way to test if the universe is deterministic or not because our knowledge is not perfect.

...
Aspects of the universe may appear chaotic but only because we don't have enough knowledge to predict these behaviours adequately. The best we can do is apply laws of probability to these events. This is similar to how we say that the result of a coin toss is "random" even though it is actually the result of factors we can't measure.

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

...
Under identical circumstances, the "chaos" would happen again in exactly the same way. And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

 

[Leumas]

I believe the point was that they did not exist.

Nothing is changed here: which world exist out of the possible worlds is as random as it always were. The physics is the same, it is only how to understand it that is different.

Yes, there is randomness as far as we can tell.

Great.... can you tell that to the guy denying that randomness exists at all... and says that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of our measuring rulers??

...
More witticism, right?

Do you think all this stuff still implies a deterministic universe... whichever one of the gazillions that might pop up at the drop of a hat??

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.