I find the idea of that the future is already set is faulty. And therefore the invention of a time-machine is impossible. And furthermore - we have a free will.
Then let me ask you this, will you die or live forever?
Originally posted by whodey Then let me ask you this, will you die or live forever?
I will die, naturally, like anyone else.
But the way I will die is not set by the future. The future does not exist yet. Only when my time is over, we will know how I died.
According to my opinion. This opinion cannot be proven, nor disproven, therefore remains an opinion.
Originally posted by twhitehead You are not making a lot of sense. Discussion our opinions would be just as useful or useless regardless of whether or not determinism is true and regardless of whether or not we believe it to be true.
Assume determinism is true. Then things will just go as they are supposed to go even our thoughts.
If we can not make decisions (or if we don't have a free will that can influence our own decissions) what is then the use of discussing. Just go with the flow.
Originally posted by twhitehead So for you, free will is necessarily unknown science? Why?
[b]Als quantum mechanics has non-deterministic parts in it. There is even a role for the observer, a human being, in the Copenhage interpretation I am quite well aware that quantum mechanics implies a certain amount of random input in the universe. But is that free will? Surely that would ...[text shortened]... en be discussing this (or anything for that matter) as your comments are based on random input.[/b]
a) Free will is necessary because it is the only useful philosophy to stand in life. Believing in determinism can lead to defeatism. It is also not a scientific view in the definition of Popper as you can never falsify it.
b) Of course I don't consider quantum randomness to be "free will". It just shows that even for very small systems determinism seems not to hold. Although, without an observation QM is deterministic in principle. An interesting question would be: should the observer in QM always be a being with a conscious/free-will or can also a machine make an observation?
c) Of course there is a lot of randomness around us. Also think about Lyapunov instabilities. However, for me a "decision" made on the basis or "reasoning, environmental influences" is still somewhat different than "action=-reaction"
Originally posted by TitusvE Assume determinism is true. Then things will just go as they are supposed to go even our thoughts.
If we can not make decisions (or if we don't have a free will that can influence our own decissions) what is then the use of discussing. Just go with the flow.
Your logic is so flawed I hardly know where to begin. Your apparent decision to simply give up just because your decisions are dictated in a deterministic manner doesn't make any sense at all.
Originally posted by TitusvE a) Free will is necessary because it is the only useful philosophy to stand in life.
But can you explain what you mean by free will? So far, it seems you have a philosophy that you believe is necessary, but you cannot even begin to explain what that philosophy is.
Believing in determinism can lead to defeatism. So it seems. But only if you are naturally self defeatist. You seem to think it follows necessarily but cant seem to explain why.
It is also not a scientific view in the definition of Popper as you can never falsify it. Why not?
b) Of course I don't consider quantum randomness to be "free will". So what is free will? You seem to be remarkably vague on the matter.
Although, without an observation QM is deterministic in principle. No, I don't think it is.
An interesting question would be: should the observer in QM always be a being with a conscious/free-will or can also a machine make an observation? Even machines can make observations. Consciousness does not come into it at all.
c) Of course there is a lot of randomness around us. Also think about Lyapunov instabilities. However, for me a "decision" made on the basis or "reasoning, environmental influences" is still somewhat different than "action=-reaction" But nevertheless, reasoning and environmental influence can be deterministic.
Originally posted by twhitehead But can you explain what you mean by free will? So far, it seems you have a philosophy that you believe is necessary, but you cannot even begin to explain what that philosophy is.
If determinism would be true, you lose responsibility for your actions. Free-will means that you can decide now. You can do A or you can do B. You can change the future by your actions. It means that your not a leaf that follows the direction of the wind. You can say that my actions all have an origen: the things that I encountered in my past, the things I see around me, the words I read on a forum, my character. All these things will influence any decision. Still, I believe, we have freedom to decide to do something else than our instinct would say. It is difficult to explain as it is a subtle difference, but a very important difference.
Believing in determinism can lead to defeatism. So it seems. But only if you are naturally self defeatist. You seem to think it follows necessarily but cant seem to explain why.
===
That would be the deterministic point of view. But seriously, I think that if adolescent start to believe too much in determinism it can be dangerous.
It is also not a scientific view in the definition of Popper as you can never falsify it. Why not?
==
Can I do something to convince you determinism isn't true?? No I can't. Suppose I do something outrageous to show you I have free will. You can always say "yes, but you did this because of your intrinsic program reacts on this discussion about determinism etc etc". Hence, I can't do anything without you using the argument that it was the only thing I could have done.
As we cannot rewind time, there is no way for me to falsify determinism. Therefore it is a religion
in the reasoning of Popper.
Although, without an observation QM is deterministic in principle. No, I don't think it is.
===
I think it is. The random part only comes into play when a wavefunction or superposition collapses
due to an observation. Without observation the wavefunction propagates deterministically in time.
An interesting question would be: should the observer in QM always be a being with a conscious/free-will or can also a machine make an observation? Even machines can make observations. Consciousness does not come into it at all.
===
That is the question. Suppose a molecules is in a superposition of two states.
If we observe it it will collapse into one of the two states. However, if some nanomachine
measures/'observes' this molecule, what happens then? Suppose that the molecule+nanomachine
is completely isolated from the outside world. I think the right QM interpretation is that
the whole supermolecular system (molecule+nanomachine) itself will be in a superposition.
Only if we want to read out the output of the nanomachine the wavefunction collapses.
Originally posted by TitusvE Originally posted by twhitehead [b]If determinism would be true, you lose responsibility for your actions. Free-will means that you can decide now. You can do A or you can do B. You can change the future by your actions. It means that your not a leaf that follows the direction of the wind. You can say that my actions all have an origen: the things th ...[text shortened]... und me, the words I read on a forum, my character. All these things will influence any decision.
I disagree. I do not see why you would lose responsibility for your actions under determinism, nor why you should act differently just because you believe determinism is the case.
Still, I believe, we have freedom to decide to do something else than our instinct would say. It is difficult to explain as it is a subtle difference, but a very important difference. Yes, but how is that decision then made? It either comes down to determinism, or pure randomness.
That is the question. Suppose a molecules is in a superposition of two states.
If we observe it it will collapse into one of the two states. However, if some nanomachine
measures/'observes' this molecule, what happens then? Suppose that the molecule+nanomachine
is completely isolated from the outside world. I think the right QM interpretation is that
the whole supermolecular system (molecule+nanomachine) itself will be in a superposition.
Only if we want to read out the output of the nanomachine the wavefunction collapses. You give humans way to much credit.
Quantum dynamics does not in any way rely on the observer being human or conscious.
Originally posted by twhitehead Your logic is so flawed I hardly know where to begin. Your apparent decision to simply give up just because your decisions are dictated in a deterministic manner doesn't make any sense at all.
Surely it makes perfect sense...it's pre-determined that he's going to give up!
Which is why I don't think it makes a great deal of practical difference. Act as if free-will exists...if it doesn't, you were going to act that way anyway.
By the way, anyone interested in this sort of stuff may enjoy The Memory of Whiteness by Kim Stanley Robinson. The human implications of deterministic physics are a central theme in the book.
I disagree. I do not see why you would lose responsibility for your actions under determinism. Because you could not act otherwise.
It either comes down to determinism, or pure randomness. why only these two posibilities? It could be a combination or even mixed with a third option related
to actions by conscious thinking beings
You give humans way to much credit. No I don't. Intelligent creatures out of space might do it as well ;-)
Or maybe even animals. The subject of "observer" has been object of many discussions, so don't pretend it does not exist.
Originally posted by mtthw Surely it makes perfect sense...it's pre-determined that he's going to give up!
Which is why I don't think it makes a great deal of practical difference. Act as if free-will exists...if it doesn't, you were going to act that way anyway.
I fully agree. It is always better to make well thought decisions thinking you have a free will.
If you do that, then if determinism exist, you would have done it anyway. If determinism does not exist, then you are happy that you made your decisions correctly.
However, if the world is not deterministic, but you believe it is, you might end up doing very strange things.
Originally posted by mtthw Which is why I don't think it makes a great deal of practical difference. Act as if free-will exists...if it doesn't, you were going to act that way anyway.
Thats simply illogical. You are claiming that because of determinism, you are forced to act in one specific way (ie act as if free will exists).
TitusvE on the other hand believe you are forced to act as if determinism is true and further forced to give up.
Both are totally illogical and not in any way predicted by determinism.
Originally posted by TitusvE Because you could not act otherwise.
That does not remove responsibility. The problem here is you do not have the right formulation for what 'responsibility' entails.
why only these two posibilities? It could be a combination or even mixed with a third option related to actions by conscious thinking beings I did ask for alternatives earlier. Thinking conscious beings is not a 'third' option. All that does is attempt to hide the dilemma. Ultimately the thinking conscious being must have a method of making decisions (which was in fact what was the original question), and that method is either deterministic, or random (or other thinking conscious beings ad infinitum).
No I don't. Intelligent creatures out of space might do it as well ;-)
Or maybe even animals. The subject of "observer" has been object of many discussions, so don't pretend it does not exist. I repeat, the 'observer' in quantum mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. You are welcome to try and show otherwise. Vague references to 'many discussions' wont cut it. You could start with a single reputable source.
Originally posted by twhitehead That does not remove responsibility. The problem here is you do not have the right formulation for what 'responsibility' entails.
[b]why only these two posibilities? It could be a combination or even mixed with a third option related to actions by conscious thinking beings I did ask for alternatives earlier. Thinking conscious beings is not a 'thi ...[text shortened]... s to 'many discussions' wont cut it. You could start with a single reputable source.[/b]
Originally posted by twhitehead That does not remove responsibility. The problem here is you do not have the right formulation for what 'responsibility' entails.
Come on. This seems logic. I you murder a person because you could't do otherwise, e.g. self-defense, a judge will not punish you. Same logic applies here.
I did ask for alternatives earlier. Thinking conscious beings is not a 'third' option. All that does is attempt to hide the dilemma. Ultimately the thinking conscious being must have a method of making decisions (which was in fact what was the original question), and that method is either deterministic, or random (or other thinking conscious beings ad infinitum). Why 100% random or 100% deterministic. Never heard of Langevin dynamics? Anyway, you exclude a third option based on what we know about the movement of dead object/molecules etc. It is not excluded that another type of description is necessary to describe "thinking".
I repeat, the 'observer' in quantum mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. You are welcome to try and show otherwise. Vague references to 'many discussions' wont cut it. You could start with a single reputable source. You did not comment on my previous argument. If the machine (observer) and molecule (being in a superposition) are in an isolated space, the whole thing gets into a superposition. Only if a person tries to read out the result of the machine the quantum state collapses.
08 Jun '10 06:521 edit
Time paradox
Back to Top