random events(whitehead)

Originally posted by serigado
Wrong.
In classical mechanics thinking you are right. Quantum mechanics tells us otherwise. We can see truly random things happening (nuclear decay is the easiest to understand I think)

Okay so you see truely random things happening. You know the outcome of these things yes? Does the fact that they happened and you know the outcome mean that they are not random anymore? Of course not!

Therefore it is possible to know the outcome of a non determined event if you happen to be in the right place within the dimension of time.

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
Random never really exists. Given enough detail and considering every possible outcome, you can predict anything.

Take a roulette wheel. Is it random that it lands on 24, or with enough information could you predict accurately it would land on 24, even if a gust of wind came along at the last minute, which you had already taken into your calculations.

Nothing is random. Everything is specific

Would Heisenberg agree?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So stop deflecting and answer the point.

You are the one repeatedly deflecting, to the point of starting new threads and avoiding all questions. Now answer the questions before proceeding.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Let's say Hitler made all his decisions using a random number generator (based on quantum uncertainty) . You now would know the outcome of his decisions by looking at history and yet his decisions would not be random. How would you be able to say that simply knowing his future (as your past) makes his decisions determined (when obviously they would be random)?

No, they would not 'obviously' be random. That is a claim you are making, not an obvious fact. In fact, since it is the exact thing under dispute it is rather poor logic for you to be trying to pass it off as fact.

I have logically proved that simply knowing that an event has occurred does not prove that said event HAS to be determined.
No you have not. You have simply claimed something is random then claimed that you have proved it is random. Hardly what one would call a logical proof.

I am going to choose to make a decision based on generating a random number using my computer now -----76---- . This means that I will make myself a milkshake . HMMMM ..lovely.... Ok , you know the outcome of this choice because you must be reading this after I posted it. Now , prove that my choice HAS TO BE determined simply because you now know about it. You can't .
I can, and have repeatedly, but every time I do, you start a new thread. Why is that? My mind-reading sense is tingling but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you tell us the reason.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Would Heisenberg agree?

As far as I know Heisenberg never said anything was random, simply that we could not calculate the answer. Not quite the same thing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"Whether or not Hitler knows his future, whether or not he can know his future, he still has a future, and it is still the one I know he had. He therefore had no free will." -- WHITEHEAD

This is obviously false.

Proof:
1) Postulate that Hitler had free-will in 3 binary choices of his life {A,B,C}, each with options {1,0}. The set of possibilities is then:
{{0,0,0},{0,0,1},{0,1,0},{0,1,1}, {1,0,0}, {1,0,1}, {1,1,0}, {1,1,1}}
2) Hitler, using his free-will, makes his A,B,C choices along his life.
3) After Hitler's death we observe only one single realization in that set of possibilities.

We cannot therefore conclude, from the uniqueness of the a posteriori set of choices, that Hitler lacked ex-ante free will.

Edit - Obviously, this doesn't prove that free-will exists. Just that this particular argument against it is false.

Originally posted by Palynka
This is obviously false.

Proof:
1) Postulate that Hitler had free-will in 3 binary choices of his life {A,B,C}, each with options {1,0}. The set of possibilities is then:
{{0,0,0},{0,0,1},{0,1,0},{0,1,1}, {1,0,0}, {1,0,1}, {1,1,0}, {1,1,1}}
2) Hitler, using his free-will, makes his A,B,C choices along his life.
3) After Hitler's death we observe only ...[text shortened]... s doesn't prove that free-will exists. Just that this particular argument against it is false.

agreed

Originally posted by twhitehead
As far as I know Heisenberg never said anything was random, simply that we could not calculate the answer. Not quite the same thing.

So you are saying that random events or unpredictable events are actually impossible and if we only had a powerful enough computer we could in theory predict eveything?

I thought Heisenberg's principle was about uncertainty and unpredictability? Are those who are saying that nuclear decay of particles has a random element wrong? Are you infact a 100% hard determinist?

I get the feeling you had just better concede my point and move on. You may be digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they would not 'obviously' be random. That is a claim you are making, not an obvious fact. In fact, since it is the exact thing under dispute it is rather poor logic for you to be trying to pass it off as fact.

[b]I have logically proved that simply knowing that an event has occurred does not prove that said event HAS to be determined.
No you ...[text shortened]... ense is tingling but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you tell us the reason.[/b]

Obviously if you believe that the entire universe is completely devoid of random activity then you have a coherent argument. But doesn't Heisenberg et al offer evidence that a level of uncertainty does in fact exist?

My humble understanding of quantum physics is that it overturned our classical mechanistic way of looking at the universe. You now seem to be going against this by suggesting everything in the universe is determined. It's like I said you have a pre-assumed position on this which rides rough shod over quantum physics.

The thing under dispute right now is can or do random events happen in the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they would not 'obviously' be random. That is a claim you are making, not an obvious fact. In fact, since it is the exact thing under dispute it is rather poor logic for you to be trying to pass it off as fact.

[b]I have logically proved that simply knowing that an event has occurred does not prove that said event HAS to be determined.
No you ense is tingling but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you tell us the reason.[/b]

You do not provide any proof as I can see because your position requires that you pre assume hard determinism. A pre assumption is not a proof , it's a position , one which you are entitled to but it's still just a position.

As far as starting other threads is concerned. It's because i tend to come up with new ideas on this. If you notice none of the later threads have been abandoned by me , infact I think if anything you abandoned one because I had boxed you into a corner.

When are you just going to own the fact that you have a perfectly Ok position on this but you cannot prove it NOR can you show my theory to be self contradictory within the premises that X sets?

Originally posted by Quirine
agreed

Thanks guys , now how does one get whitey to see this ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Thanks guys , now how does one get whitey to see this ?

don't bother trying anymore 🙂

Originally posted by knightmeister
Thanks , I agree with much of what you say. This book sounds interesting , is it still in print?

I agree that the past is fixed but that this doesn't prove that the past was determined. The theory of free will does mean that once something is done , then it is done , so to speak.

However , although Hitler's future (our past) is in front of him i ...[text shortened]... agenda to snuff out Christian thought wherever he sees it having a chance of success.

Yes, it's still in print. Bergson was very popular in the English speaking world when he was alive. So he supervised the English translation of much of his work. Around the mid 20th century his work fell out of fashion, but there's reason to think it's becoming more popular again thanks, in part, to how much he was admired by the late Gilles Delueze.


http://www.amazon.com/Time-Free-Will-Immediate-Consciousness/dp/0486417670

Originally posted by bjohnson407
Yes, it's still in print. Bergson was very popular in the English speaking world when he was alive. So he supervised the English translation of much of his work. Around the mid 20th century his work fell out of fashion, but there's reason to think it's becoming more popular again thanks, in part, to how much he was admired by the late Gilles Delueze.


http://www.amazon.com/Time-Free-Will-Immediate-Consciousness/dp/0486417670

Johnson - I found this on a discussion forum on the net. You sound like someone who has got a handle on these things. What do you think of the below? For me it was a little eye opener into Heisenberg -- is this guy correct in his reasoning???.....


"Classical Newtonian mechanics assumes no randomness- everything is controlled by simple equations of motion, and that's the end of the story. However, in modern physics we have a key concept called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that you can never truly measure both an object's position and momentum with total accuracy. Hence it's impossible to predict with total accuracy how one particle will affect another. This effect is most pronounced for objects at the atomic level, but the effect on the real world is profound. The way that molecules in a gas interact, for example, can only be modeled as random.

Think about this experiment that shows how randomness is present in every day life - suppose you line up 10 billiard balls, with each ball separated 1 meter from the next. Using a cue ball, is it possible to hit the first ball into the second, so that the second hits the third, the third hits the fourth, and so on for all ten balls? It sounds simple enough - just a very good combination shot. But if you do the math you'll see that any error in the way two balls collide is magnified by about a factor of 30 when the next ball is hit. So for ten balls any initial error is magnified by 30^10, which is about 6 x 10^15. Stated another way, the initial hit would have to be accurate to better than 5x10^-15 cm. To achieve this level of accuracy the balls would need to be smoother than atomic structure allows. At this level the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sets in. So it's impossible to predict exactly what will happen to the 10 bals - the end result is random. Now think just how much more incredibly complicated the universe is compared to just 10 billiard balls, and you can see that randomness is indeed fundamental to how things behave."

http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/advice/t-12733.html

Originally posted by knightmeister
Johnson - I found this on a discussion forum on the net. You sound like someone who has got a handle on these things. What do you think of the below? For me it was a little eye opener into Heisenberg -- is this guy correct in his reasoning???.....


"Classical Newtonian mechanics assumes no randomness- everything is controlled by simple equations of ...[text shortened]... ed fundamental to how things behave."

http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/advice/t-12733.html

I honestly don't know anything about Heisenburg. So for all I know this could be exactly right or exactly wrong. I wish I could help you more in that regard, but it would be pure b.s.

So here goes, The way that the principle is presented here, it seems to me that we're making a leap to say that "randomness is fundamental to how things behave" because the principle speaks only of our ability to "measure both position and momentum with total accuracy." Randomness seems fundamental to how we measure. Is the problem that things necessarily Appear random to us, or that things Really Are random? It reminds me of those who talk about "god's plan" and say that "it might not look like hurricane Katrina could be part of a good plan, but it makes sense from god's perspective." Maybe from 'god's perspective' the exact causal chain in the pool balls is evident.

Your friend whithead seems to me to be saying something more like this last claim. That even if things look random or freely chosen, they're not. As for this, I don't know, but I think you might have him on the run with this one.

Another question you might ask is whether a decision has to be random to be freely chosen.

Sorry, but that's about the best I can do. Quantum physics has always been mystery to me.