Mind over Matter

[timf1234]

A probablistic 'rule' is still a rule. So you have not really made an 'proof' that brownian motion is deterministic and that it will always result in a final state from initial conditions.

Yes, I have.
Any system based on 100% "Cause and Effect" will have single path toward the future. It will therefore, have single and same next state everytime you roll the universe. Only HUP allows the system to be unpredictible.

Above statement in Red color is similar to [ 1 OR 0 = 1]
It is mathematical. It is logical. This logcial prove is far more powrful than experimental laboratory evidence.

If you do not believe the validity of the statement above in Red color then your belief is analogous to believing "ghost in the machine".

Again there is difference between causal/deterministic in the physics sense and deterministics in philosophy.

"Physics sense" vs. "Philosophy" sense.
You are back to your cop out strategy of introducing unnecessary distingtions in the context.
In the past you have attempted to muddy the water by introducing unneccessary distincgtion "dualist view", compatabilist, incompatabilist, and all kind of nonsense.
Let me tell you very clearly, what we are interested here is the truth, the fact. We are not siding with compatabilist or incompatabilist view. Let's just find out the truth. Can we?

Again there is difference between causal/deterministic in the physics sense and deterministics in philosophy.

Philosophy that defies laws of physics is junk, fairly tail, fantacy.
What we are interested in is the reality, science. That's why I had this thread in Science forum. Moderator moved it to philosphy thread. I have no control over that.

Everything under the sun will be analysed by reason, logic, and science. Be it material, non material claims, abstaract, religion, philosophy, witchcraft or what have you.

Nothing, nothing will get a free pass in the name of philosophy.
Otherwise, just go believe in Santa Clause.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, I have.
Any system based on 100% "Cause and Effect" will have single path toward the future. It will therefore, have single and same next state everytime you roll the universe. Only HUP allows the system to be unpredictible.

Above statement in Red color is similar to [ 1 OR 0 = 1]

Oh pretty colors.

lets break it down shall we?

A rule may not resolve to a single state?

In a jar we have a single molecule, and its rule is that it can vibrate to the right of the left. Now that rule is probabilistic, there is 50% chance of it going to either state.
So we start a t₁.
Over time if we start at state t₁, which is always the same, we will have two different outcome states.
Yes ?
Now if we have two molecules, they both follow the single rule, vibrate right of vibrate left, with no interaction.
We start at state t₁ again and they both start in the same initial state.
Now we have four possible states that the system can be in.

Yes or no?

So in this system where we have simple rule for each member of the set, vibrate right 50%, vibrate left 50%, if we have two members of the set we can have four possible outcome states.

Yes?

So in a probabilistic rule based system, we can different outcomes for a set dependant upon the number of members of the set and the degrees of freedom.

It is mathematical. It is logical. This logcial prove is far more powrful than experimental laboratory evidence.

In mathematical logical space.

If you do not believe the validity of the statement above in Red color then your belief is analogous to believing "ghost in the machine".

Strawman, I have stated that there are rule systems that are probabilistic.

"Physics sense" vs. "Philosophy" sense.
You are back to your cop out strategy of introducing unnecessary distingtions in the context.
In the past you have attempted to muddy the water by introducing unneccessary distincgtion "dualist view", compatabilist, incompatabilist, and all kind of nonsense.

I may have mentioned dualism, the rest I did not. Maybe you should couch your statements more carefully.

Let me tell you very clearly, what we are interested here is the truth, the fact. We are not siding with compatabilist or incompatabilist view. Let's just find out the truth. Can we?

Ah, truth.
(I don't want to derail this but truth is an illusion.)

Philosophy that defies laws of physics is junk, fairly tail, fantacy.
What we are interested in is the reality, science. That's why I had this thread in Science forum. Moderator moved it to philosphy thread. I have no control over that.

Everything under the sun will be analysed by reason, logic, and science. Be it material, non material claims, abstaract, religion, philosophy, witchcraft or what have you.

Nothing, nothing will get a free pass in the name of philosophy.
Otherwise, just go believe in Santa Clause.

There you are.

 

[timf1234]

In a jar we have a single molecule, and its rule is that it can vibrate to the right of the left. Now that rule is probabilistic, there is 50% chance of it going to either state.
So we start a t1.
Over time if we start at state t1, which is always the same, we will have two different outcome states.
Yes ?

False.
If your above system is not influenced by HUP and if you start with precise state, S1, AND the system has the same rule then you will end up in the same state S2, every single time. [Only fool tries to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.]
Your 50% probabilistic engineering approach is a work around due to our lack of knowledge of all the laws and for lack of precision of our measuring instrument that determines the initial state S1. You in reality never start with the same S1 because you can't measure it precisely.
If you give me the exact measurement of all the forces, mass, energy and all the detail with infinite precision, AND I have all the rules that applies AND if I have computing power then I do not need to give you poor 50% probabilistic prediction but I will give you 100% certainty which direction it will go. this is true for weather forecast as well. There is no ghost in the cloud. Unless you subconsciously believe in the Santa Clause. I know, you will never say that. You will never think you do. But your flaw in the chain of logic demonstrate that.

HUP]is a completely different story. Your 50% probability is coming from our shortcomings.
Secondly, in reality, no system is immune from HUP. Therefore, under the influence of HUP the outcome will be probabilistic.

Now if we have two molecules, they both follow the single rule, vibrate right of vibrate left, with no interaction.
We start at state t1 again and they both start in the same initial state.
Now we have four possible states that the system can be in.

Yes or no?

Your conclusion is false. See my response above.

So in this system where we have simple rule for each member of the set, vibrate right 50%, vibrate left 50%, if we have two members of the set we can have four possible outcome states.
Yes?
So, inn a probabilistic rule based system, we can different outcomes for a set dependent upon the number of members of the set and the degrees of freedom.

Your conclusion is false.
See my explanation above.
Your probabilistic outcome is due to lack of your and my knowledge of the system. Probabilistic approach to solve problems is the imperfect engineering workaround to move forward to build things. But HUP’s probabilistic nature is inherent in nature.

 

[Complexity]

HUP is a completely different story. Your 50% probability is coming from our shortcomings.

Where did you that idea?

It has been apparent for some time that you have a strange notion of what the Heisenberg Uncertain Principle is.

Quit holding it up as though it were a holy relic.

Things are both simpler and more complex than you make them out to be.

 

[Dancing David]

False.
If your above system is not influenced by HUP and if you start with precise state, S1, AND the system has the same rule then you will end up in the same state S2, every single time. [Only fool tries to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.]

And again you can not have a system in the real world without HIP, yet I am not sure it has the driving force behind the indeterminate motion of molecules in a liquid, or air molecules in a gas.

Your 50% probabilistic engineering approach is a work around due to our lack of knowledge of all the laws and for lack of precision of our measuring instrument that determines the initial state S1. You in reality never start with the same S1 because you can't measure it precisely.

that is where is seems that you are making an assumption. But i will not repeat that too many times.

I see you still have not presented evidence that it is the case.
So do you have information on the behavior of gas molecules that demonstrates you principle, or will you admit that is an assumption?

If you give me the exact measurement of all the forces, mass, energy and all the detail with infinite precision, AND I have all the rules that applies AND if I have computing power then I do not need to give you poor 50% probabilistic prediction but I will give you 100% certainty which direction it will go.

So you say, any evidence of that or just a philosophical POV, can that level of prediction exist?

Assertion, lather, rinse, repeat.

this is true for weather forecast as well. There is no ghost in the cloud. Unless you subconsciously believe in the Santa Clause.

No I am not firm in my belief, if the motion of molecules is indeterminate, then it could be that they could be determined with great precision and computing power, but it could also be that they are not.
So far the evidence would indicate that they are indeterminate, so i have no firm basis for a conclusion either way.

I know, you will never say that. You will never think you do. But your flaw in the chain of logic demonstrate that.

Logic, schmogic, what about data and evidence?

HUP]is a completely different story. Your 50% probability is coming from our shortcomings.

You assume that, in the motion of molecules it may not be totally predictable with ultimate precision, it may be. The evidence would indicate that right now, a probability model works best.

Secondly, in reality, no system is immune from HUP. Therefore, under the influence of HUP the outcome will be probabilistic.

That may be, it may also be that the motion of molecules has more to do with inelastic collisions and EM forces, as well as binding potentials. They may be derived from HIP but not directly.

I am not the one who has stated anything about systems without HIP as an assertion.

Your conclusion is false. See my response above.


Your conclusion is false.
See my explanation above.
Your probabilistic outcome is due to lack of your and my knowledge of the system.

That seems to be an assumption and undemonstrated upon your part. Burden of proof to you.

Probabilistic approach to solve problems is the imperfect engineering workaround to move forward to build things. But HUP’s probabilistic nature is inherent in nature.

Another assumption, it appears that way but there is no good theory that explains HIP at this time, other than the wave forms and similar probabilistic approximations and interpretation.

 

[timf1234]

Where did you that idea?

It has been apparent for some time that you have a strange notion of what the Heisenberg Uncertain Principle is.

Quit holding it up as though it were a holy relic.

Things are both simpler and more complex than you make them out to be.

OK, then you tell me what do you think about the HUP?
Do you think QM and weather forecast uncertainty is of same category?
Is there any qualitative difference?
If so then please tell me.

 

[timf1234]

No I am not firm in my belief, if the motion of molecules is indeterminate, then it could be that they could be determined with great precision and computing power, but it could also be that they are not.
So far the evidence would indicate that they are indeterminate, so i have no firm basis for a conclusion either way.

Please educate me.
Is the indeterminacy of weather forecast or Brownian motion proven mathematically?
If not then the lab. result only is not sufficient to conclude that. Lab results are limited by the accuracy and computing power of our equipment.
Yes, if something, like theory of relativity, or HUP or anything else is already mathematically and logically proven and then the experimental result also confirms the prediction then we can trust it as laws of nature.
QM uncertainty is mathematically proven and experiment verified.

In the absence of HUP, the unpredictability of Brownian motion or weather forecast is a violation of basic laws of Newtonian mechanics. If an object, large or microscopic, hit by another object from a certain angle and force then it has no where to go except in a very particular direction as determined by the vector. There is no ifs or buts here. It is only the shortcoming of our equipment that might not be able to compute the precise direction.

 

[Dancing David]

Please educate me.
Is the indeterminacy of weather forecast or Brownian motion proven mathematically?

Maybe you could tell me what you mean by that, as usual on the JREF I am reluctant to answer without knowing your meaning and usage.

I would say that no theory is proven mathematiically, they can be shown to be accurate predictions through mathematics.

So your meaning is?

If not then the lab. result only is not sufficient to conclude that. Lab results are limited by the accuracy and computing power of our equipment.
Yes, if something, like theory of relativity, or HUP or anything else is already mathematically and logically proven and then the experimental result also confirms the prediction then we can trust it as laws of nature.

Or until a more accurate theory comes along, theories are just approximate models.

QM uncertainty is mathematically proven and experiment verified.

I am not sure I undetstand your use of the term 'mathematically proven', but since you use it that way I think I can safely say that Brownian motion as a stochastic process theory happens to match a probabalistic model of motion and the available data.

Could you elucidate what you mean by 'QM uncertainty is mathematically proven'.

In the absence of HUP, the unpredictability of Brownian motion or weather forecast is a violation of basic laws of Newtonian mechanics.

the 'laws of Newtonian mechanics', I am not sure how to respond to that. It seems to be a little outdated, does that include inelatic collisions involving EM fields and binding of molecules?

If an object, large or microscopic, hit by another object from a certain angle and force then it has no where to go except in a very particular direction as determined by the vector.

You do know that malecules are not modelled as hard little balls, right?

There is no ifs or buts here.

Please show me where molecules are accuratley modelled by theis statement
"If an object, large or microscopic, hit by another object from a certain angle and force then it has no where to go except in a very particular direction as determined by the vector."

It is only the shortcoming of our equipment that might not be able to compute the precise direction.

You keep saying that but you haven't demonstrated it yet.

 

[Complexity]

OK, then you tell me what do you think about the HUP?
Do you think QM and weather forecast uncertainty is of same category?
Is there any qualitative difference?
If so then please tell me.

No.

I'm not going to play games with you.

You are too ignorant of science to discuss science with.

Spend your spare time reading some good science books rather than spewing out nonsense on the internet.

 

[timf1234]

No.

I'm not going to play games with you.

You are too ignorant of science to discuss science with.

Spend your spare time reading some good science books rather than spewing out nonsense on the internet.

It looks like you need some basis science education. Reread your physics 101 college book and think first before uttering garbage.

 

[timf1234]

Maybe you could tell me what you mean by that, as usual on the JREF I am reluctant to answer without knowing your meaning and usage.

I would say that no theory is proven mathematiically, they can be shown to be accurate predictions through mathematics.

So your meaning is?

Or until a more accurate theory comes along, theories are just approximate models.

I am not sure I undetstand your use of the term 'mathematically proven', but since you use it that way I think I can safely say that Brownian motion as a stochastic process theory happens to match a probabalistic model of motion and the available data.

Could you elucidate what you mean by 'QM uncertainty is mathematically proven'.

the 'laws of Newtonian mechanics', I am not sure how to respond to that. It seems to be a little outdated, does that include inelatic collisions involving EM fields and binding of molecules?

You do know that malecules are not modelled as hard little balls, right?

Please show me where molecules are accuratley modelled by theis statement
"If an object, large or microscopic, hit by another object from a certain angle and force then it has no where to go except in a very particular direction as determined by the vector."


You keep saying that but you haven't demonstrated it yet.

David,

To help you understand what the difference and importance of mathematical proof and then experimental (empirical) result take the example of Theory of Relativity. Albert Einstein when first mathematically figured out the bending of light in high gravity and time dilation there were no experimental proof for that. He did it just on the paper. A lot letter both of his prediction was experimentally verified. Same is true for quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle. that is why it is called "Principle" not theory or even "Laws". This concept of QM is far stronger and foundational. On the other hand when you indirectly measure value of G and declare value as universal gravitational constant then the accuracy of the value of G is limited by the accuracy of our measuring equipment.

Sine 30 degree = 0.5 is mathematically proven. then you can go and experimentally verify it by using building, its shadow and the angle it makes between the ground and the tip of the building.

Brownian motion is only based on direct experimental data. It leaves the room for error due to the poor accuracy of our measuring equipment and lack of our knowledge of all laws of physics.

Again, principle that in the absence of HUP, to compute Ut2(State of the Universe at t2) from Ut1 (State of the Universe at t1 - initial state) all we need is Ut1, all the laws of nature and computing power is true. This principle is bed rock foundation of logic; without this one can't even prove 1 + 1 = 2

 

[Dancing David]

Um Hi tim1234, you have still not demonstrated your principle that Brownian motion is not stochastic, thanks for the explanation of mathematical proof as you use it.

I see that we have reached an impasse
L8TR dude.

 

[Dancing David]

I also feel that it is a mischaracterization of Heisenberg's work to say that it was purely mathematical, it came at about the same time the Schrödinger showed that the wave form and the matrix maths were equitable, and HIP came about from Heisenberg trying to resolve some issues of the work of Dirac and Jordan in the resolution of the transformational theory. This all comes about as the transition from the 'old' quantum mechanics to the 'new' took place.

And the important part is that all of the efforts were to explain already known experimental results like Compton scattering.

 

[timf1234]

I also feel that it is a mischaracterization of Heisenberg's work to say that it was purely mathematical, it came at about the same time the Schrödinger showed that the wave form and the matrix maths were equitable, and HIP came about from Heisenberg trying to resolve some issues of the work of Dirac and Jordan in the resolution of the transformational theory. This all comes about as the transition from the 'old' quantum mechanics to the 'new' took place.

And the important part is that all of the efforts were to explain already known experimental results like Compton scattering.

I did not mean that that HUP is only mathematical. HUP is verified experimentally too.
I do not know the exact chronological order of mathematical and emperical proof of HUP. Exact chronological order is not important. What important is the fact both, mathemetical and emperical proof exist for HUP. Value of h (plank constant) or h/2pi = h' = hcut is not derived out of experimental result. But h or hcut is mathematical. Of course, emperical laboratoy result confims the uncertainty within h' range, the wiggle room.

This is not the case for Brownian Motion or Weather forcast uncertainty.
there is a clear distinction between the uncertainty of Brownian motion and Weather forecast versus QM.

Actually you will have to prove that your probabilistic approach for BM is not due to your incompetancy. QM uncertainty principle clearly state that its uncertainty is not due to our incometancy.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, Tim1234, it seems that you really don't understand the QM stuff, at this point it is up in the air if a theory will appear that resolves causality in QM, and that includes all of QM.

If that happens then HIP will also be causal in some ways, whether you appreciate it or not HIP is part of a theory, it is an approximate model for trying to explain the behavior of reality.

Now there is a very high likelihood that QM will stay in determinant for a number of reasons, but as you likely know (hard to say really), QM is a theory as is HIP.


BTW: The burden of proof is on you regards Brownian motion. The current theories are that it is stochastic and probabilistic.
You are the one making the claim that it is a matter of precision, so the burden of proof is on you.

I am rather shocked but what you don't seem to know. The mathematical expression of Brownian motion in fact is almost as extensive as HIP.

 

[dlorde]

Basically, do we have free will?

Of course we do, like it or not, we have no choice about it

 

[Mirrorglass]

By the way, while this debate over determinancy is interesting, is it really relevant to the question of whether or not we have free will?

I mean, even if we can establish that some processes in our brains truly were probabilistic and not determined, how would that make free will more plausible? After all, all actions of a human would still be determined by physical processes. Random processes, sure, but that would still only mean our actions are decided by chance, not that they are decided by us.

 

[dlorde]

I'm in favour of Brian-M's compatabilist version of free will. True, it is vague and fuzzy, and if we accept the universe as deterministic at macro scales, it is necessarily an arbitrarily defined sub-category of causal sequences. But although vague, it is considered socially useful. It is generally used to make the distinction between physical and moral responsibility - in the examples, previously posted, of forced or unwitting actions where the actor was physically responsible for the action, but would not normally be held morally responsible for it, we can say that they did not act entirely (or at all) of their own free will. Conversely, you act of your own free will when the action you take is broadly the result of internal processing without undue external influence.

Which raises questions - what is external influence and what is internal? How much is 'undue'? Who decides?

As for who decides, there seems to be a cultural consensus as to how such things are decided, although there may be a difference between the common consensus and legal and/or religious demarcations.

Distinguishing between internal and external influences is another arbitrary decision - the social and moral mores of the culture you grow up in tend to be internalised during socialisation, so they are generally taken to be the internal influences, although extra & contra-cultural moral values may also be internalised.

The external influences are those that impinge at the time of the decision processing that results the action, and/or those that physically intervene to initiate or change the action. Of those that affect the decision processing, some will be reinforcing of the internal influences, and some contradictory/opposing. External influences that are contradictory/opposing to the internal influences are particularly important in assessing the 'freedom' of the action. When these external influences overwhelm the internal influences in the decision-making, or the influence the physical action itself, we can say that free will is compromised.

It is vague, and it is personal and subjective, but it is a convenient means for the assessment of individual moral responsibility. The importance is (as touched on previously) in deciding culpability and punishment. If you commit a criminal act, but not of your own free will, i.e. you are physically but not morally responsible, there is little point in punishment, as it cannot have a deterrent effect, rehabilitation is not relevant, and one would hope that retribution would be devalued. On the other hand, if you commit the offence of your own free will, it can be argued that punishment will result in new internal influences that will have a deterrent effect in similar future situations, assisting rehabilitation. I don't believe this is necessarily the case, human nature being what it is, but as my dad (a barrister) used to tell me: 'Never confuse The Law with Justice'.

 

[Beth]

By the way, while this debate over determinancy is interesting, is it really relevant to the question of whether or not we have free will?

I mean, even if we can establish that some processes in our brains truly were probabilistic and not determined, how would that make free will more plausible? After all, all actions of a human would still be determined by physical processes. Random processes, sure, but that would still only mean our actions are decided by chance, not that they are decided by us.

I feel that it does. This is how I look at it. If I consciously decide to make a change in my life, I can do so. There are random elements that will contribute to my success or failure, but I can change the probability that I will 'choose' to do certain things. People do so all the time. They quit smoking. Or they lose weight. Or they give up drinking. Probability of sucess is low. Most people must make the attempt multiple times prior to succeeding. Even then, relapses occur. Weight goes back on over time. A fall off the wagon happens. There are random elements to when temptation strikes and one's defenses against it.

But, the convincing thing to me is that a person can make a conscious decision to change the way they will behave and their behavior changes as a result. That failures occur a majority of the time is not evidence of determinism, but evidence of the difficulty of consciously directing our own behavior. That we humans are able to succeed on occasion is miraculous. I consider it convincing evidence that we have free will and are not bound deterministically to our individual fates.

 

[Complexity]

That seemingly conscious decision is, in fact, determined.

There is no free will.