Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

See post 222.

Why does that post confuse you?

"Deterministic" means that the same inputs will result in the same outputs. If the same inputs could result in one of several different outputs then the system is not deterministic.

 

[psionl0]

The confusion is.... that you think that "random" does not mean uncertainty... if you think randomness can be eliminated by determining factors then you mean pseudo-random not random....

Your confusion is that you believe that QM proves that randomness is real.

Randomness is something that is assumed by QM and you can't assume something is true to prove it is true.

 

[Leumas]

Your confusion is that you believe that QM proves that randomness is real.

Randomness is something that is assumed by QM and you can't assume something is true to prove it is true.

Ok... so in order to understand what you are saying and not presume it...

Are you denying that there is randomness....

Or

Are you refuting Quanum Physics

Or

What???

 

[psionl0]

Ok... so in order to understand what you are saying and not presume it...

Are you denying that there is randomness....

Or

Are you refuting Quanum Physics

Or

What???

Not proven true doesn't mean proven false. I am not making any assertions (for or against) without proof.

 

[Leumas]

Why does that post confuse you?

"Deterministic" means that the same inputs will result in the same outputs. If the same inputs could result in one of several different outputs then the system is not deterministic.

Have you ever heard of something called White Noise or Brownian noise???

Also... although a bit too complex... look up Quantum nonlocality???

 

[Leumas]

Not proven true doesn't mean proven false. I am not making any assertions (for or against) without proof.

So again ... so as to not misrepresent you...

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Or

Are you denying that Quanum Physics has been proven true?


If your answer is yes... then you are arrantly wrong on both or either....

If your answer is anything other than yes.... then you have negated your own previous post.

In all cases you are arrantly and hugely WRONG.

Your confusion is that you believe that QM proves that randomness is real.

Randomness is something that is assumed by QM and you can't assume something is true to prove it is true.

 

[psionl0]

Have you ever heard of something called White Noise or Brownian noise???

Also... although a bit too complex... look up Quantum nonlocality???

Yes. And?

 

[Leumas]

Not proven true doesn't mean proven false. I am not making any assertions (for or against) without proof.

I suggest you read about how Quantum Physics has been proven true by the fact that it works and has made life for humanity better than any gods have ever done so.

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 proven.... read this... it might help prove it.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

 

[Leumas]

Why does that post confuse you?

"Deterministic" means that the same inputs will result in the same outputs. If the same inputs could result in one of several different outputs then the system is not deterministic.

Have you ever heard of something called White Noise or Brownian noise???

Also... although a bit too complex... look up Quantum nonlocality???

Yes. And?

And.... if you knew about them.... these fields of knowledge.... irrefragably answer the question below... about the above

What confusion is that?

 

[Leumas]

....
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.

Exactly... woo woo...

....
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.

Exactly... REALITY....

 

[Roboramma]

Exactly... woo woo...

Now you're just letting your personal prejudices determine your views of physics.

My own view is that Copenhagen is a mess that can't even define the collapse of the wave function coherently, though it can be a useful approximation to what's going on. But these are still open questions, I'm certainly not going to just call it "woo woo" as though that answers the question.

 

[Leumas]

....
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

 

[Leumas]

Now you're just letting your personal prejudices determine your views of physics.

My own view is that Copenhagen is a mess that can't even define the collapse of the wave function coherently, though it can be a useful approximation to what's going on. But these are still open questions, I'm certainly not going to just call it "woo woo" as though that answers the question.

I suggest you look at post #248... for more REALITY... and my personal prejudices too...

 

[psionl0]

I suggest you read about how Quantum Physics has been proven true by the fact that it works and has made life for humanity better than any gods have ever done so.

What a pile of nonsense! I am not making any "god" claim.

And a formula might give the right answers (under current circumstances) but that doesn't mean that the underlying theory has been proven to be true. Newtonian physics should be sufficient to show the folly of your reasoning.

 

[Leumas]

<snip>

Why are you evading answering...

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?
Are you denying that Quanum Physics has been proven true?

Not proven true doesn't mean proven false. I am not making any assertions (for or against) without proof.

So again ... so as to not misrepresent you...

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Or

Are you denying that Quanum Physics has been proven true?


If your answer is yes... then you are arrantly wrong on both or either....

If your answer is anything other than yes.... then you have negated your own previous post.

In all cases you are arrantly and hugely WRONG.

Your confusion is that you believe that QM proves that randomness is real.

Randomness is something that is assumed by QM and you can't assume something is true to prove it is true.

 

[Leumas]

What a pile of nonsense! I am not making any "god" claim.

And a formula might give the right answers (under current circumstances) but that doesn't mean that the underlying theory has been proven to be true. Newtonian physics should be sufficient to show the folly of your reasoning.

Ironically... it in facts does exactly that for yours not mine...

You are the one denying and refusing to accept a more advanced theory of physics called Quantum Physics in preference for a ... what??? Determinism and lack of randomness in the universe???

Just like you think Newtonian Physics has been replaced by The General Theory Of Relativity... so has your determinism and lack of randomness been replaced by Quantum Physics and Chaos Theory and the fact that randomness is REALITY.

Nevertheless... as an aside.... Newtonian Physics has not by any means been disproven... so you are... ironically... doubly wrong. You would know that if you knew that Newtonian Physics is a subset of the Theory Of General Relativity.

Here are some current and modern and actual and everyday uses of Newtonian Physics that you think has been disproven.... there is only one image in the mosaic that has nothing to do with REALITY whatsoever... see if you can guess which one.... all the rest have been made possible by design using Newtonian Physics.

 

[psionl0]

Why are you evading answering...

Do you mean "why am I not saying that you are absolutely and unequivocally 100% right and I am absolutely and unequivocally 100% wrong"?

My answers are 100% clear and deal with your faulty reasoning perfectly. That you can't tell that is not my problem.

 

[Leumas]

Do you mean "why am I not saying that you are absolutely and unequivocally 100% right and I am absolutely and unequivocally 100% wrong"?

If by answering the questions you admit that then you are right!!!

My answers are 100% clear and deal with your faulty reasoning perfectly. That you can't tell that is not my problem.

But you prefer to keep evading giving an answer.... which implies that the above is the only option for which you are therefore evading answering.

 

[psionl0]

But you prefer to keep evading giving an answer clear answers....

ftfy.