Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 129

Thread: free will

  1. #91
    Amen P-O's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    Unless the outputs are random.
    That would just make it a true statement of ignorance, rather than a false one.
    Violence is never the right answer, unless used against heathens and monsters.

  2. #92
    Homo siderius Sistamatic's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,542
    INTPx Award Winner
    Here @Robcore, this should help...

    Spoiler: thinkinator
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    I'm not avoiding socializing I'm helping socializing avoid me! --MoneyJungle

  3. #93
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,391
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by P-O View Post
    That would just make it a true statement of ignorance, rather than a false one.
    Ignorance of the unknowable? I don't see the problem.
    Most of time, when people ask why something terrible happened, they don't realize they are looking for someone to blame.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  4. #94
    know nothing pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    But this is not, by far, a wrap in scientific terms. Maybe we'll find another layer of subatomic, the configuration of which determines the state of that which we currently believe to be the most basic building block. But we can't assume that.[/SIZE]
    Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that we can assume the opposite; that there are no hidden variables at work determining the state.

  5. #95
    Aporia Dysphoria Dirac's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    Is there any evidence for this? I don't see how there could be. As far as I'm aware all the evidence we have says that the waveform collapses exactly when it is observed
    To be clear, when I say 'no observers' I mean no conscious entities who can perceive, there would still be a measurement apparatus - it is the interaction with this apparatus that causes the collapse, not the presence of a conscious 'observer'. Obviously, conducting experiments on something like this is probably impossible, but we currently have no reason to suppose that there is something magical about conscious minds. I'm not so much trying to convince you as explain the way that the majority of physicists think. Consciousness being required for collapse is definitely a minority interpretation.

    BTW I'm not sure I even believe in wavefunction collapse.
    ∴ ∵ ∴

  6. #96
    Aporia Dysphoria Dirac's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that we can assume the opposite; that there are no hidden variables at work determining the state.
    AFAIK Bell's Theorem only says that hidden variables require a non-local theory.
    ∴ ∵ ∴

  7. #97
    Homo siderius Sistamatic's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,542
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that we can assume that.
    I can find no indication that physicists have come to any sort of consensus on that.

    https://www.nature.com/news/physics-...erates-1.15435
    The contradictory claims by the two camps thus arise because they mean different things by ‘Bell’s theorem’ and different things by ‘local’ (or ‘non-local’). For localists, Bell’s theorem is the 1964 one, and the preferred choice is to keep locality and forgo hidden variables. For non-localists, Bell’s theorem is (or should be) the 1976 one, which leaves no choice but to forgo local causality.
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    I'm not avoiding socializing I'm helping socializing avoid me! --MoneyJungle

  8. #98
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    I think the double slit experiment is strong evidence that it does cause something. We have an experiment where an act of will alone seems to change the outcome, and we have no other explanation for why the outcome was changed.

    And then intuitively you might say that the will isn't really free if something else caused it. So, if you had the exact same physical entity we call a human in the exact same circumstances, that human would always make the same choice. That's an incredibly difficult experiment to perform and we have no way to do that presently. But if we could trace the physical origin of consciousness, that would be a start. If we were able to produce decisions in a person by changing the physical inputs to the person, that would be strong evidence for determinism. I don't think we've come anywhere close to this.
    The double slit shows that observation can change the outcome...but to study determinism, it's not so much about outcomes as it is about inputs. You need an experiment where you can determine whether a person will choose to observe in one way vs. the other way. Social psych is probably the counter point to the double slit, because it aims to predict how and why people take the actions that they do.
    ...the origin of emotional sickness lay in people’s belief that they were their personalities...
    "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." ~Carl Jung

  9. #99
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    But the more we zoom in on the infrastructure of the universe, the more apparent it becomes that the very best predictions that can be made, given an initial state, is to determine the statistical likelihood of an outcome. The outcome of any individual particle is utterly indeterminate. Look at it this way - determinism is an illusion that requires low resolution to maintain. The more you zoom in, the less feasible it becomes.
    This is the part that I get hung up on...because, to me, randomness means that all possible outcomes have the same statistical likelihood. If not, then there ought to be some factor that determines the likelihood of certain outcomes, and so on.
    ...the origin of emotional sickness lay in people’s belief that they were their personalities...
    "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." ~Carl Jung

  10. #100
    know nothing pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirac View Post
    AFAIK Bell's Theorem only says that hidden variables require a non-local theory.
    Yes but is there any serious non-local theory that's based on any evidence? DeBroglie-Bohm basically posits a parallel universe controlling all aspects of this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    I can find no indication that physicists have come to any sort of consensus on that.

    https://www.nature.com/news/physics-...erates-1.15435
    You missed my edit, but that's okay. That's a good article but here's a more recent one that contradicts some of it based on new research.

    Of course none of this can truly disprove determinism. It's also possible that, like in The Three-Body Problem, aliens across the galaxy have sent supercomputers disguised as protons programmed to interfere with our supercolliders and give us non-sensical experimental results so we can't advance technologically in the time it will take those aliens to get here and conquer us.

    I guess in the end all I have is my intuition, and it all comes down to faith.

Similar Threads

  1. Free will: The new religion?
    By Lurker in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-16-2018, 02:27 PM
  2. Best website to learn Java for free?
    By QuickTwist in forum Academics & Careers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-12-2017, 03:56 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-18-2017, 07:40 AM
  4. Free money and stuff
    By LordLatch in forum The Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2016, 05:08 PM
  5. So like god and free will and stuff
    By Deckard in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-01-2014, 10:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •