Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

Why wouldn't they be ?

I have already explained why.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I have already explained why.

Guess I still don't get it ..

 

[psionl0]

Guess I still don't get it ..

In theory you could calculate the result of the next coin toss but not the next quantum state of an atom.

 

[steenkh]

In theory you could calculate the result of the next coin toss but not the next quantum state of an atom.

I agree with you, but I do have a nit to pick: Amongst the almost unlimited number of factors whose state you need to know in order to calculate the coin toss result, is also the quantum state of atoms.

Some ion might deteriorate and emit a ray that has enough energy to push the coin.

But I still think that there is a difference between the two randoms.

 

[psionl0]

I agree with you, but I do have a nit to pick: Amongst the almost unlimited number of factors whose state you need to know in order to calculate the coin toss result, is also the quantum state of atoms.

Some ion might deteriorate and emit a ray that has enough energy to push the coin.

But I still think that there is a difference between the two randoms.

You are not necessarily wrong but this is car out of the garage territory. You could quite literally have GOOGOLs of tosses before a quantum effect changed the expected outcome of the coin toss.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are not necessarily wrong but this is car out of the garage territory. You could quite literally have GOOGOLs of tosses before a quantum effect changed the expected outcome of the coin toss.

You wouldn't know, would you? Granted that quantum effects can influence a coin toss, you could also argue that every coin toss is influenced by it. Think 'butterfly effect'.

Hans

 

[psionl0]

You wouldn't know, would you? Granted that quantum effects can influence a coin toss, you could also argue that every coin toss is influenced by it. Think 'butterfly effect'.

Hans

"Butterfly effect" is an overused term. The number of times that a butterfly flapping its wings caused a major storm on the other side of the world is probably about zero.

A coin toss is such that Newtonian laws are all you need to analyze it. The number of times that a quantum effect overturned the result is probably around zero.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are probably around right. My point is, we have no way of knowing.

Hans

 

[psionl0]

You are probably around right. My point is, we have no way of knowing.

There is a difference between having a rough idea and not knowing at all. The QM equations will show that the probabilities in these cases are ridiculously low.

 

[Leumas]

There is a difference between having a rough idea and not knowing at all. The QM equations will show that the probabilities in these cases are ridiculously low.

i.e. random.

Random is random even if the probability is low... it is still random.

So when you say

...Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?
...

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

Then ...

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

and

You are quite simply and directly wrong about this....

and

...You clearly don't understand Everett, or QM in general.

And as I said before

There are too many chaotic and indeterministic processes that are part of the universe thus rendering the universe indeterministic.

Brain responses to interaction with an indeterministic process is also indeterministic... hence the ILLUSION of free-will.

QED!!!


.

 

[MRC_Hans]

There is a difference between having a rough idea and not knowing at all. The QM equations will show that the probabilities in these cases are ridiculously low.

Not quite what I meant, but I suspect we'll end up discussing definitions, which is hardly worth the trouble, in this case.

Hans

 

[Darat]

There is a difference between having a rough idea and not knowing at all. The QM equations will show that the probabilities in these cases are ridiculously low.

The chances of something like the coin flipping 180 degrees via "quantum" is of course very, very, very low - however many of the inputs into the toss are at the levels where quantum weirdness can come into play.

 

[Dr.Sid]

In theory you could calculate the result of the next coin toss but not the next quantum state of an atom.

Coin toss might be too simple so it is actually doable .. but dice ? Collisions, lot of frictions, many unstable situations .. uncertainty might actually play enough role to change the result time to time.
As one is build upon another, I don't see where the distinction would occur. You just get more certain with larger scale .. but never completely certain.

 

[Leumas]

The chances of something like the coin flipping 180 degrees via "quantum" is of course very, very, very low - however many of the inputs into the toss are at the levels where quantum weirdness can come into play.

And even without that... the whole point of randomness... even if an omniscient Jabberwocky could calculate all the factors to determine what THIS toss is going to be... is that the NEXT toss will not be the same because the probability of all the factors lining up in the very same way again to obtain the same outcome are infinitesimal... but... even if they did... it is a probability... i.e. RANDOM.

And moreover... the factors lining up to be the same if we rewind time and play the movie again... is also infinitesimal because of Quantum Physics... and even if they do... it is still a probability... and thus RANDOM.

And furthermore... all this probability of a probability never repeating even if we have a Jabberwocky who could omnisciently determine factors he cannot predict because they are random... even if he rewinds time.... means indeterminism.



.

 

[Leumas]

Coin toss might be too simple so it is actually doable .. but dice ? Collisions, lot of frictions, many unstable situations .. uncertainty might actually play enough role to change the result time to time.
As one is build upon another, I don't see where the distinction would occur. You just get more certain with larger scale .. but never completely certain.

Exactly.... and do not forget that the coin could always land on its edge instead of on one of its faces.... so there is even that to be added to the unpredictability and thus randomness....

But a coin toss has a very small possible set of outcomes.... how about a roulette table spin or a draw of a card.... and although these have many more outcomes in the set, they are still limited.

Momentum's standard deviation of variation (σ_p) and Position's standard deviation of variation (σ_x) have an analog (i.e. infinite) set of values they could be... the only limit is the relationship described by the Uncertainty Principle (ħ is the Planck constant):

σ_xσ_p≥ ħ/2​

And this is a property of REALITY... and thus in reality nothing is predetermined nor determinable with certainty... and thus indeterministic... i.e. even an omniscient Jabberwocky cannot rewind time and play it forward with the same outcome.



.

 

[psionl0]

Coin toss might be too simple so it is actually doable .. but dice ? Collisions, lot of frictions, many unstable situations .. uncertainty might actually play enough role to change the result time to time.
As one is build upon another, I don't see where the distinction would occur. You just get more certain with larger scale .. but never completely certain.

You don't need QM theory to analyze a dice either.

 

[The Norseman]

Exactly.... and do not forget that the coin could always land on its edge instead of on one of its faces.... so there is even that to be added to the unpredictability and thus randomness....

But a coin toss has a very small possible set of outcomes.... how about a roulette table spin or a draw of a card.... and although these have many more outcomes in the set, they are still limited.

Momentum's standard deviation of variation (σ_p) and Position's standard deviation of variation (σ_x) have an analog (i.e. infinite) set of values they could be... the only limit is the relationship described by the Uncertainty Principle (ħ is the Planck constant):

σ_xσ_p≥ ħ/2​

And this is a property of REALITY... and thus in reality nothing is predetermined nor determinable with certainty... and thus indeterministic... i.e. even an omniscient Jabberwocky cannot rewind time and play it forward with the same outcome.



.

I'm pretty ignorant in many things, thus my question; but I was under the impression that there was no arrow of time at the quantum level. If that is correct, how could that affect predeterminism or the concepts thereof?

 

[steenkh]

The chances of something like the coin flipping 180 degrees via "quantum" is of course very, very, very low - however many of the inputs into the toss are at the levels where quantum weirdness can come into play.

Obviously, a 180˚ flip would be extremely unlikely, but in those rare situations where the coin almost balances, a tiny influence could make it go either way.

 

[psionl0]

i.e. random.

In which sense are you using the word this time?

 

[Leumas]

I'm pretty ignorant in many things, thus my question; but I was under the impression that there was no arrow of time at the quantum level. If that is correct, how could that affect predeterminism or the concepts thereof?

Makes them meaningless and just yet other human imagination claptrap like this