Free Will

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 2) It is impossible to predict the future.

I'll assume you mean "it is impossible to predict the future of all particles at the quantum level".

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This is something that I find weird. The universe is just a big billiard table and all matter is just billiard balls bouncing around and colliding with each other. To me, that suggests that the future is predetermined, even if we can't predict it.

Clearly you don't understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, even though you quoted it. The whole point is that, at the quantum level, the universe is NOT analogous to a billiard table.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So even if you think you have a million difference choices, whatever choice you pick was bound to be the way it was going to be since the beginning of time.

Whoah! How the hell did you conclude THAT?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The only hope for true free will is if there is something in the universe that can affect the path of a particle and can't be predicted mathematically. Something random.

Study up on quantum physics, my friend. A theory has been developed that regards the brain as a sort of quantum computer.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I'll assume you mean "it is impossible to predict the future of all particles at the quantum level". Clearly you don't understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, even though you quoted it. The whole point is that, at the quantum level, the universe is NOT analogous to a billiard table.

I know that not all particle movement is linear. That doesn't matter.

As long as the movement is predictiable, you could predict the future IF you knew everything about every particle at a certain time.

But that's the point of where HUP comes in. It's impossible for us to know everything about every particle at any time because as soon as we determine the location or momentum of a particle, we change the other property.

Whoah! How the hell did you conclude THAT?

That's a simple fact if hard determinism is true.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That's a simple fact if hard determinism is true.

Key word: if.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 But that's the point of where HUP comes in. It's impossible for us to know everything about every particle at any time because as soon as we determine the location or momentum of a particle, we change the other property.

You're missing the point. The HUP is not telling you that such knowledge is unachievable, it is telling you that such knowledge does not exist.

The whole point is that particles do not have precisely definable Newtonian properties -- they are, instead, a probability distribution. Like I said, study up on quantum mechanics.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You're missing the point. The HUP is not telling you that such knowledge is unachievable, it is telling you that such knowledge does not exist. The whole point is that particles do not have precisely definable Newtonian properties -- they are, instead, a probability distribution. Like I said, study up on quantum mechanics.

Wrong.

Any particle can be said to be located at certain coordinates, have a mass, have a velocity, and have a direction for it's velocity.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Any particle can be said to be located at certain coordinates, have a mass, have a velocity, and have a direction for it's velocity.

Of course it can be "said". You can "say" anything. That doesn't mean it has any relevance to reality.

[zynner]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The universe is just a big billiard table and all matter is just billiard balls bouncing around and colliding with each other. To me, that suggests that the future is predetermined, even if we can't predict it.

Your analogy is not valid. While it is true that both billiard balls and matter in the universe are subject to the laws of physics, human thought is not.

Human actions are determined by human thought. And human thought cannot be predetermined as can the exact angle of a billiard ball off the far cushion.

~ zynner

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Of course it can be "said". You can "say" anything. That doesn't mean it has any relevance to reality.

Which is dependant on how you define your reality.

QM defines it one way.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Which is dependant on how you define your reality. QM defines it one way.

So now you are trying to say that an objective reality does not exist? Great, you've just torn down your whole argument.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

You know, the reason why things seem to happen at random is because things depend on SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many different variables to be. Like for example if you shot a water gun and filmed it with a high speed camera. Now lets say you wanted to reproduce the first attempt in your subsequent attempts. Now, would you not say that this is impossible? Could you make the subsequent attempts look EXACTLY(atom for atom) like the first one? My definite answer is YES. How? You would have to place all the atoms everywhere else in the universe just like they were the instant you pressed the trigger on the first run so that this little squirt of water will fall into place like the first one. Now, this tells me two things: that rarely will something happen twice exactly the same, but nothing is random at the same time. No? REMEMBER, CHAOS IS ONLY SITUATIONS THAT WE DONT UNDERSTAND. Things that have way too many variables for our skill levels. Take it as "truisms" or whatever label you want, but hey. You never know.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: 'Plasma Snake[D REMEMBER, CHAOS IS ONLY SITUATIONS THAT WE DONT UNDERSTAND. Things that have way too many variables for our skill levels.

But quantum mechanics contends that randomness is an inherent characteristic of the universe. Are you saying that our knowledge of physics is incomplete, and that one day we will produce a totally deterministic model?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Exactly. I think quantum mechanics is a stepping stone that negates any previous false beliefs and gives way to a more realistic view. Maybe it's the realization that things aren't what they seem. You know, it could all just make no sense. Maybe there is 99% predeterminability(whatever) and 1% randomness. Who knows.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So now you are trying to say that an objective reality does not exist?

I'm saying the way we define our reality is subjective.

Just like the way we define our measuring systems are subjective.


You can use the metric system or you can use the imperial system. They're measuring the same thing.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Are you saying that our knowledge of physics is incomplete, and that one day we will produce a totally deterministic model?

That is the exact question that this thread asks.

Is finding a deterministic physical modal of the universe possible?

Could we, assuming we knew all the information of every element of the universe, use such a model to predict the universe at any time?

OR

Does such a model not exist due to some random or otherwise unpredictable property of the universe?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I'm saying the way we define our reality is subjective. Just like the way we define our measuring systems are subjective. You can use the metric system or you can use the imperial system. They're measuring the same thing.

Quantum physics does not "measure the same thing" as classical physics. They operate based on a totally difference paradigms of the universe. They give different results, and therefore only one of them can be correct. Experiment supports quantum physics. There's nothing "subjective" about that.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That is the exact question that this thread asks. Is finding a deterministic physical modal of the universe possible?

Bullshit, that's not the question you asked at all. You had already presumed that the universe was deterministic, or thought to be deterministic.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quantum physics does not "measure the same thing" as classical physics. They operate based on a totally difference paradigms of the universe.

They try to explain the same thing in different ways.

They give different results, and therefore only one of them can be correct.

They try to explain things in different ways. That's not the same thing as giving different results.

Experiment supports quantum physics. There's nothing "subjective" about that.

The scientific method itself is subjective. Every experiment is subject to show a slightly different result.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You had already presumed that the universe was deterministic, or thought to be deterministic.

No, I didn't.

I clearly said that free will exists if there are random, unpredictible ways in which particals move around in the universe because every possible future image of the universe is then legitimized.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They try to explain the same thing in different ways.

No, they explain something totally different.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They try to explain things in different ways. That's not the same thing as giving different results.

What's your point? The fact stands, quantum physics and classical physics give different answers for the same problems.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The scientific method itself is subjective. Every experiment is subject to show a slightly different result.

What point are you trying to make here? That science is invalid? If so, you are denying the existence of an objective reality and thereby making this whole discussion of free will meaningless.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I clearly said that free will exists if there are random, unpredictible ways in which particals move around in the universe because every possible future image of the universe is then legitimized.

And I told you that the best modern physics we have says that is how the universe works. It's random.