Debunk Free Will

[Chester]

Everything we do is caused, our freedom lies within choosing actions dependent on available causes. The will is never free from that constraint.

There you go chaps, sorted.

[Chester]

This seems to be saying that there is no single line of causality…

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... 3&t=124383

Obviously there isn't.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's obviously not obvious. I can't seem to recall anything but 1 past. One of the common things I hear physicists say is that, apart from entropy, time is symmetrical. If that's the case, 1 past implies 1 future.

[Calrid]

It's obviously not obvious. I can't seem to recall anything but 1 past. One of the common things I hear physicists say is that, apart from entropy, time is symmetrical. If that's the case, 1 past implies 1 future.

The weak force is Charge Parity and probably Time (CPT) variant as well. The upshot being that rewinding and replaying time should not produce the same absolute results.

[Diekon]

I agree with statik. Cause and effect are ways in which we conceptialise the world. Assuming Causality as an underlying law of the universe, or a closed unbroken chain of causality, is going yet a step further, and maybe to far. Maybe sub-sub-sub-atomic particles jump all over the place randomly. Fact is we don't know.

And as far as speaking of reversing time is concerned, or time being symmetrical, it think a similar mistake is being made. Time doesn't literally exist. It's a measurement of change. Talking about rewinding time doesn't make sense in that way. We could talk about reversing change, and that is in fact something we can do. We can freeze water, and heat it back up... but heating it back up doesn't rewind time, it takes yet more time.

But all of this is unnecessary when talking about free will. It's not a scientific concept, and broken when you hold it to that light.

[Dglgmut]

It's obviously not obvious. I can't seem to recall anything but 1 past. One of the common things I hear physicists say is that, apart from entropy, time is symmetrical. If that's the case, 1 past implies 1 future.

I agree with this. Probability is completely theoretical. Pragmatic logic would lead us to believe that there can only ever be one outcome to a specific set of circumstances.

[Calrid]

It's obviously not obvious. I can't seem to recall anything but 1 past. One of the common things I hear physicists say is that, apart from entropy, time is symmetrical. If that's the case, 1 past implies 1 future.

I agree with this. Probability is completely theoretical. Pragmatic logic would lead us to believe that there can only ever be one outcome to a specific set of circumstances.

Quantum mechanics tells us there is not. Logic is all very well but the most successful physics theory of all time tells us something different and it has lead to all the most successful theories of the modern age. Philosophers will believe what they want to believe because that is how they are taught in school. It's a religion this causality chain. Good luck with that.

[Dglgmut]

It's obviously not obvious. I can't seem to recall anything but 1 past. One of the common things I hear physicists say is that, apart from entropy, time is symmetrical. If that's the case, 1 past implies 1 future.

I agree with this. Probability is completely theoretical. Pragmatic logic would lead us to believe that there can only ever be one outcome to a specific set of circumstances.

Quantum mechanics tells us there is not. Logic is all very well but the most successful physics theory of all time tells us something different and it has lead to all the most successful theories of the modern age. Philosophers will believe what they want to believe because that is how they are taught in school. It's a religion this causality chain. Good luck with that.

People don't choose their beliefs, they discover them, be them right or wrong. You can be aware of causality within your own conscious mind... if you can see it there, in one of the most complex creations in the Universe, then there's little doubt it would be everywhere else.

[lizbethrose]

Well, at least none of you has disagreed with me completely, or you'd let me know. But I just reread my last reply and perhaps more explanation is needed. First of all, space isn't a true vacuum.

All of the observable universe is filled with large numbers of photons, the so-called cosmic background radiation, and quite likely a correspondingly large number of neutrinos. --Wiki

These are the particles (quanta) I was talking about. If particles collide, the energy, which cannot be destroyed (as far as we know,) is dispersed in all directions, a sort of mini bang. This is the idea behind the CERN Large Hadron Accelerator. This isn't a random dispersal; it's seemingly random because the pathways cannot be accurately determined--especially in space. Energy can either attract or repel energy--positive attracts positive but positive repels negative. That's what I mean by carom.

To me, the chain of causality can take infinite paths, depending. If the universe has no 'mind', if the universe is indeterministic and, therefore cannot be predicted, the chain of causality before the event will vary--it's only after the event that the human mind finds a cause and effect series. That means cause and effect is a human construct. If the universe is indeterministic, because it has no mind, then humans, given minds, can have the freedom to choose one option over another without any effect at all on the future of the universe. What is humanly chosen may or may not have an affect on the future of the human race; but I think, if it does, that's taking causality to an extreme in a 1960s Star Trek sort of way.

[Dglgmut]

Liz, the Universe has many minds. You're one of them...

[Flannel Jesus]

It's obviously not obvious. I can't seem to recall anything but 1 past. One of the common things I hear physicists say is that, apart from entropy, time is symmetrical. If that's the case, 1 past implies 1 future.

I agree with this. Probability is completely theoretical. Pragmatic logic would lead us to believe that there can only ever be one outcome to a specific set of circumstances.

Quantum mechanics tells us there is not.

No, it really doesn't. I can't believe I have to say this again, try to listen this time: some interpretations of quantum mechanics say that. It's a little arrogant to call the interpretation you believe "Quantum Mechanics". That's like a Christian saying "Religion says Jesus died for our sins" --- errr, no, some religions say that.

[Amorphos]

Does free will even come down to the choices we have available to us? As long as we can choose how we think then we have free will in the mind, being tied to a chair doesn’t stop me thinking about stuff - so to say.

I don’t think there is a single causal line for us anyway, objects are too tied up with information which we can certainly change.

What are the agents of cause anyhow? You’d have to have absolute objects with absolute interactions to even arrive at that. In short its all to soupy at the base level, not only can we not define the cardinality of objects, they themselves cannot define their own cardinality, that’s why its all so fluid at base.
What is this ‘mystical’ thing we refer to as cause?

[Calrid]

No, it really doesn't. I can't believe I have to say this again, try to listen this time: some interpretations of quantum mechanics say that. It's a little arrogant to call the interpretation you believe "Quantum Mechanics". That's like a Christian saying "Religion says Jesus died for our sins" --- errr, no, some religions say that.

Interpretations that are completely undifferentiated from any other and given they require either particle only models which don't explain experimental results or dimensions/universes we can never detect, they most likely will never be accepted except by the fringe or the experimentally lazy.

The Copenhagen model works for all experimental systems, the others do not. This is why it is accepted, grudgingly.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't consider you an expert, and I don't yet have any reason to accept the interpretation you accept.

[Calrid]

I don't consider you an expert, and I don't yet have any reason to accept the interpretation you accept.

Good because I didn't claim to be one. I just prefer experiment to arm waving.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not completely sure, but I personally doubt that you've done the experiments yourself, or looked at the raw data an analyzed it yourself, so claiming that your position is the experimental one is a bit laughable. You ARE just arm-waving at this point. You read somebody's interpretation of the experiments, just as I did. You think the interpretation you believe is the most common one believed by serious quantum-physicists, as do I. As I said, I have no reason to accept yours as yet. Just claiming that yours is correct or the more accepted one isn't good enough. This is philosophy buddy. Not a "My dad can beat your dad up" 3rd grade conversation. Come up with something better.

(for the record, I'm not even completely sure you're interpreting their interpretations correctly either)

[Calrid]

I'm not completely sure, but I personally doubt that you've done the experiments yourself, or looked at the raw data an analyzed it yourself, so claiming that your position is the experimental one is a bit laughable. You read somebody's interpretation of the experiments, just as I did. You think the interpretation you believe is the most common one believed by serious quantum-physicists, as do I. As I said, I have no reason to accept yours as yet. Just claiming that yours is correct or the more accepted one isn't good enough. This is philosophy buddy. Not a "My dad can beat your dad up" 3rd grade conversation. Come up with something better.

There are no experiments for the other interpretations. Copenhagen has the Feynman two/double slit. If you want me to explain it I will.

And in science a resort to authority is valid. As is a resort to popularity.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harr ... eSlit.html

A very good explanation here. If you have any questions ask.

[Flannel Jesus]

Copenhagen has the Feynman two/double slit. If you want me to explain it I will.

Double slit has deterministic interpretations. Those are the ones I've read.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_ ... _sequence/

But go ahead and explain anyway.

[Calrid]

Copenhagen has the Feynman two/double slit. If you want me to explain it I will.

Double slit has deterministic interpretations. Those are the ones I've read.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_ ... _sequence/

But go ahead and explain anyway.

There's a lot of links there could you not show the links that explain how the two slit is deterministic? Instead of expecting me to read all of them. After all I gave a link that showed it's probabilistic nature..?

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm pretty sure, btw, that the deterministic interpretations refer to all the same experiments as the non-deterministic ones. It wouldn't really be an interpretation if it didn't even make reference to what it was interpreting. To assume that my interpretation, right off the bat, doesn't reference any experiments -- well, if you have no respect for me and my thinking ability in the first place, why even talk to me? I mean, if I'm so retarded that you assume I'm just ignoring all the evidence while simultaneously claiming to understand an explanation of the evidence...fuckin...why even bother talking to me? But you did bother talking to me, so I don't think you should go into this discussion assuming I'm a total idiot. That's pretty narrow of you.

[Flannel Jesus]

There's a lot of links there could you not show the links that explain how the two slit is deterministic?

The section titled "Basic Quantum Mechanics." The second post under that title talks about a very similar experiment to double-slit

[edit]
These articles are a bit more involved than the one you linked, they take time and patience to read and understand (and occasionally maybe even a pencil and paper)

[volchok]

. It's a religion this causality chain. Good luck with that.

Religions are based on faith, the belief without evidence or in the face of evidence.
My belief in causality is based on evidence.

Please don't be one of those dummies who says x, y and z are just like religions.
It makes you look ignorant.

[Calrid]

There's a lot of links there could you not show the links that explain how the two slit is deterministic?

The section titled "Basic Quantum Mechanics." The second post under that title talks about a very similar experiment to double-slit

[edit]
These articles are a bit more involved than the one you linked, they take time and patience to read and understand (and occasionally maybe even a pencil and paper)

Should of done that in the first place.

Now you're the expert, loving the juxtaposition of strawmen.

[Calrid]

. It's a religion this causality chain. Good luck with that.

Religions are based on faith, the belief without evidence or in the face of evidence.
My belief in causality is based on evidence.

Please don't be one of those dummies who says x, y and z are just like religions.
It makes you look ignorant.

I am ignorant, at least I admit it though, you have all the answers of course.

[Dglgmut]

Having answers and acknowledging that there are answers is totally different.

That's what causality is all about... a conviction of reason.