Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 129

Thread: free will

  1. #101
    just dont think about it mhc's Avatar
    Type
    iNtP
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirac View Post
    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.
    FYI in australia we interchange the word thing or stuff with shit. hope i have not confused anybody

    if there is something done and i or someone else don't know about it, its safe to assume that there aint no conscious observer. if me or one of my mates do know about it, then there was a level of conscious observation as far as I'm concerned. so if one physicist farts and another smells I'm sure as hell that the one who smelt it had no causality over the sam in the white coat from dealing it. point being, how the f...k does anyone know what results if any, some shit has if it is not totally unobserved.

    i know someone here will bring up if a tree falls in the woods blah blah blah, and unlike science I'm not saying that some magic shit happens if something is unobserved, but the fact remains that we only know the tree has fallen from observation. point being that we see the 'human' stuff in that the universe we see is the one constructed by our consciousness/brains from the data we receive from our senses so maybe it is more prudent to say that human perception collapses upon observation.
    Just look at the blue sky

  2. #102
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,841
    How about this for a thought: With certainty, what room is there for creativity?

    In the thread where we talked about whether things were 'masculine' or 'feminine', I think it was Heph who made a pretty good case for why that was pointless...and I wonder if those same arguments could be made for saying that anything is an act of the will, or that it is creative, or whatever other things...
    ...I mean, we get what we're referring to intuitively...but it isn't as though we can objectively isolate these phenomena.
    ...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

  3. #103
    Amen P-O's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    Ignorance of the unknowable? I don't see the problem.

    There's no problem. It's just an assumption about the world. I don't think it's an inherently bad one.
    Violence is never the right answer, unless used against heathens and monsters.

  4. #104
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,261
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Robcore View Post
    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.
    If I have a fair coin, then the probability of either side coming up is equal. Same for a fair die. But what about an unfair coin? (As in real coins) What about an unfair die?

    The question is, what do you call a weighted probability? The outcome remains uncertain, any of the possible outcomes could happen, but some are more likely than others. Does that mean the outcome isn't random? And if something isn't random, does that mean it can't be unpredictable?

    Quote Originally Posted by P-O View Post
    There's no problem. It's just an assumption about the world. I don't think it's an inherently bad one.
    Ok. Cool.

    Then we can skip the question about human knowability.
    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)

  5. #105
    Aporia Dysphoria Dirac's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    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.
    What do you count as serious? There are plenty of physicists who take DeBroglie-Bohm seriously (more than take seriously the consciousness-causes-collapse idea). When talking about quantum interpretation experiments are hard to come by, hence the existence of disagreement. It's physics veering into philosophy.
    ∴ ∵ ∴

  6. #106
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    If I have a fair coin, then the probability of either side coming up is equal. Same for a fair die. But what about an unfair coin? (As in real coins) What about an unfair die?

    The question is, what do you call a weighted probability? The outcome remains uncertain, any of the possible outcomes could happen, but some are more likely than others. Does that mean the outcome isn't random? And if something isn't random, does that mean it can't be unpredictable?
    Probability is an artifact of human perception, as far as I know...not something objective out in the universe.
    An unfair die doesn't do anything randomly. There are just fewer pre-conditions that lead to outcome A than there are which lead to outcome B. If there's a greater likelihood that one thing will happen, then there are obviously influencing factors...like extra weight on one side of the coin...reducing 'randomness'; causal factors, basically. Same goes for a fair coin... it still depends on initial conditions...flip it beginning a certain way, with a certain force, a certain distance from a certain surface, with certain gravity, and certain coin material, and certain atmospheric conditions, and there's really nothing random. Same goes for the weighted coin.

    When you say "any of the possible outcomes could happen", that's based on OUR uncertainty, not some objective uncertainty out in the universe.
    ...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

  7. #107
    know nothing pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirac View Post
    What do you count as serious? There are plenty of physicists who take DeBroglie-Bohm seriously (more than take seriously the consciousness-causes-collapse idea). When talking about quantum interpretation experiments are hard to come by, hence the existence of disagreement. It's physics veering into philosophy.
    I mean based on evidence. My theory that the waveform collapses because we choose to observe it is based on evidence. There is no evidence that I'm aware of for pilot waves.

    I'm not very bothered by the theory being unpopular. We know so little about consciousness. I also believe in panpsychism, and that seems pretty unpopular.

  8. #108
    Homo siderius Sistamatic's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,475
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Robcore View Post
    that's based on OUR uncertainty, not some objective uncertainty out in the universe.
    I mean yeah, that's your argument. What I'm saying is there is compelling evidence that uncertainty exists, not because we are unable to figure out what gave rise to the outcome, but rather as a natural part of the way the universe works. That there is a fundamental state that is not determined by preconditions. That there is an underlying quantum uncertainty that just is and that there is no theoretical way to overcome because there is no data to use to predict the outcome. The physicists have some compelling arguments that say this may be the case. If this is the case, then the way the universe is right now was not predetermined by it's initial conditions and identical big bangs lead to nonidentical universes, and extrapolating from that, identical circumstances can lead to nonidentical outcomes. Whether or not human will exerts any agency over these forces is another matter entirely, but if there is no quantum uncertainty, human free will is theoretically impossible and everything that is ever going to happen already happened at the moment of the beginning of the universe.

    Of course what you or I believe won't affect the way the universe works, but how much fun is it to posit our beliefs here, and to wonder what may be the case, and to live in an age where math and science can make compelling inroads into our understanding of such amazing things.
    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

  9. #109
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,261
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Robcore View Post
    Probability is an artifact of human perception, as far as I know...not something objective out in the universe.
    An unfair die doesn't do anything randomly. There are just fewer pre-conditions that lead to outcome A than there are which lead to outcome B. If there's a greater likelihood that one thing will happen, then there are obviously influencing factors...like extra weight on one side of the coin...reducing 'randomness'; causal factors, basically. Same goes for a fair coin... it still depends on initial conditions...flip it beginning a certain way, with a certain force, a certain distance from a certain surface, with certain gravity, and certain coin material, and certain atmospheric conditions, and there's really nothing random. Same goes for the weighted coin.

    When you say "any of the possible outcomes could happen", that's based on OUR uncertainty, not some objective uncertainty out in the universe.
    I know of no way to define anything happening that isn't predicated on human perception and bias.
    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)

  10. #110
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,841
    @Sistamatic
    I just don't get how they can say that there's objective uncertainty, and simultaneously say that there's statistical likelihoods without at least leaning toward accepting the inference that a statistical pattern indicates some as yet not-understood cause.
    I'm definitely interested in the arguments for how/why that uncertainty may objectively exist...but it's probably not within my current ability to understand, without some further education, I'd expect, else the arguments would be easily articulated for lay people somewhere already?
    @Hephaestus
    Of course everything is filtered via our perception, but surely you believe that there is an objective world, nevertheless?
    Suppose I'm decoding a cypher...no amount of uncertainty on my side will change the fact of what the code is concealing. The answer is objective...even though I must subjectively discover it.
    ...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

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
  •