• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Determinism

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
Is the idea of determinism correct? Does the probabilistic nature of quantum dynamics disprove determinism?

Determinism is such a beautiful idea, it would be sad if it was incorrect.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:01 PM
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,127
-->
plz use the sriacha (googol) function before creating new waste i mean threads before defecating and

r else u will receive many spankings

milk

anyway, relevantly and seriously

why ask about QM(science) determinism in philosophy?
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
plz use the sriacha (googol) function before creating new waste i mean threads before defecating and

r else u will receive many spankings

milk
I bet you have a lot of friends. Not everyone understands the things you understand m8. I am new to this whole philosophy thing, fucking relax.
 

TheManBeyond

Banned
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
2,850
-->
Location
Objects in the mirror might look closer than they
ill join de party if yu let me >·<
cuamtum dinamyx xuxs i dun understan anytibng
im in fax a sfj triing to nurse someolgud intp

xdxdxd
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:01 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,450
-->
Does the probabilistic nature of quantum dynamics disprove determinism?
It might disprove absolute determinism or quantum dynamics may only be probabilistic because we lack a full understanding of the mechanics behind the phenomena.

On a macro level determinism is pretty much irrefutable.
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
anyway, relevantly and seriously

why ask about QM(science) determinism in philosophy?
I thought determinism is classified as philosophy?

The wikipedia article on determinism states:
"Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event."
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:01 PM
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,127
-->
there is also scientific, but besides the point ig, nvm
 

gilliatt

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:01 AM
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
415
-->
Location
usa
Determinism: Theory that everything that happens in the universe, that is, thoughts,feeling, all actions, is caused by previous factors. Like nothing can happen differently from the way it did & everything in the future is pre-set.
 

Belak

Member
Local time
Today 12:01 AM
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
62
-->
Eliminating free will.

Sounds like government
 
Local time
Today 1:01 AM
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
142
-->
Location
Canada, eh?
As someone who identifies with existentialism I strongly dislike the idea of determinism. As someone who goes through the ups and downs of life I strongly dislike the idea of determinism.

I value my free will too much to even want to entertain the idea that this has all been pre-planned. It's not a beautiful idea at all. And to what ends are the means of determinism? So you live a life hashing out the path you're predestined for and die? Fantastic.
 

OrLevitate

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
784
-->
Location
I'm intrinsically luminous, mortals. I'm 4ever
As someone who identifies with existentialism I strongly dislike the idea of determinism. As someone who goes through the ups and downs of life I strongly dislike the idea of determinism.

I value my free will too much to even want to entertain the idea that this has all been pre-planned. It's not a beautiful idea at all. And to what ends are the means of determinism? So you live a life hashing out the path you're predestined for and die? Fantastic.

are you a robot? that's some boring ass shit, think i've seen it before, about a million times.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 7:01 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
not being able to reconcile determinism and the thrill of consciousness is a bit... thick tbh

fortunately you can avoid this predicament by changing your opinion :D
 

OrLevitate

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
784
-->
Location
I'm intrinsically luminous, mortals. I'm 4ever
idk, i mean bro, deternimsm would like, make a lot of problems for you to reconcile yea?

i once knew a guy who thought determinism was boring, and he had a wife, and children, lived in the suburbs, had a commensurable job, got killed by a tazer to the kidney??
So, I don't know what he was thinking when he died, but I know he believed in determinism up until I last spoke to him cuz we were talking about a.i., no difference is made really, is it? in determinism vs. some sort of free will (which I believe in), it's rather... I mean.. you just look to our best guess at understanding (ratioslinnilism) and you can see the inherent right of wrong and vice versa, no? do you really think you are what you think you are? like, but, boring? boring is just the lack of a critical analysis right? Lets see you make a critical analysis? but why try, it's rather silly, our best guess hinges on externals... so like, are you trolling?
 

OrLevitate

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
784
-->
Location
I'm intrinsically luminous, mortals. I'm 4ever
not being able to reconcile determinism and the thrill of consciousness is a bit... thick tbh

fortunately you can avoid this predicament by changing your opinion :D

fffffffffff mom came to help my kid brother
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,045
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
I dont mind people saying that determinism doesnt exist, but I would like to know whats there position philosophical, scientific or whatever. How do you crawl out of the deterministic den?
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
Determinism is correct. Free will is incorrect in the sense that every thought is governed by the laws of physics. A person can not be 100% unbiased.

The uncertainty principle is simply light pushing electrons around. There is nothing mystical about the uncertainty principle. Small particles behave in exactly the same ways as large ones.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
So 15 posts or so later you've found the answer?

That ended rather abruptly, but I SUPPOSE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY OTHER WAY :cthulhu:
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
So 15 posts or so later you've found the answer?

That ended rather abruptly, but I SUPPOSE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY OTHER WAY :cthulhu:
Haha, exactly. It was my destiny.
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
789
-->
Location
beyond space and time
I believe that the larger the system, the more "flex" in determinism that can happen. However, I don't think that free-will and consciousness are necessarily related. It's like saying that the path of a planet is determined when it's possible that someone could blow it up and change its course.

Also, I believe in the ebbs-and-flows of the universe. Behavior can be predicted and calculated but it's just the general trajectory and not precise. Things naturally tend towards the mean, experience dissonance when radiating towards another natural mean. This is apparent in the stock market when measuring psychological levels of support and resistance. So you're free to adjust your trajectory, or change velocity, but you will face discomfort until you stabilize on another natural trajectory (or tendency).

You can measure this using music notes. There are natural notes that will vibrate much longer than other deviations that snuff out quickly. Musical dissonance is not an attractive sound and communicates cognitive dissonance to audio receivers (people and animals).

So basically, I'm saying that our personality is reflective of another time in history, but adjusted over time by radiating from the mean. The more time, and the more moving parts, allow for more deviation from the mean. You could call this free-will, and would mean that organizations (like the gov'ment! and churches) have a free-will separate from the people who are part of it. You can see this with swarm intelligence and many other types of organized group-think. It's like a ship without a driver, or with too many drivers to say that anyone is actually in control of it. E.g. the butterfly effect or chaos theory.
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
Behavior can be predicted and calculated but it's just the general trajectory and not precise.
I believe that if you were to calculate every single neural impulse going on inside a person's head, you would be able to exactly predict their behaviour every single time.

You may argue that a person does not choose the same option every single time. This is because the physical structure of the brain is constantly changing. The starting conditions are constantly changing. If you exactly know the structure of a person's brain, you can exactly predict their behaviour.

It is theoretically possible to exactly calculate the future of any system.

For example, to calculate the exact structure of the earth 1 year from right now, you would need mathematical equations for every single quantum particle located in a radius of 1 light-year from earth (because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

Theoretically possible, but practically very, very difficult.
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
789
-->
Location
beyond space and time
I believe that if you were to calculate every single neural impulse going on inside a person's head, you would be able to exactly predict their behaviour every single time.

You may argue that a person does not choose the same option every single time. This is because the physical structure of the brain is constantly changing. The starting conditions are constantly changing. If you exactly know the structure of a person's brain, you can exactly predict their behaviour.

It is theoretically possible to exactly calculate the future of any system.

For example, to calculate the exact structure of the earth 1 year from right now, you would need mathematical equations for every single quantum particle located in a radius of 1 light-year from earth (because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

Theoretically possible, but practically very, very difficult.

Yeah, I agree with your points for the most part. However, I think that you would need a calculator that was a parallel universe to predict everything everywhere, precisely. You would essentially have to be "God" to measure everything and predict outcomes to that degree. Any I would say that it would still only calculate the most-likely path based on composition, velocity, and trajectory of energy flowing and transferring between systems. Faraday + Aether?

I'm only going off of my past experiences and ideas here. It's basically just the path that causes the least resistance (or dissonance) is the one that you are most likely to follow. But if you can weather the dissonance, you can change your opinion and alter your trajectory through life. Over time, these changing will be more apparent if compared to parallel universe with one minor change (the butterfly effect). But generally speaking, all the other stars and planets in the solar system, including Earth would still be in the same position and your affect is small when compared to a system this large. The same thing applies to quantum mechanics; it works until the system gets extremely large and less predictable.

Meaning, you will likely die on planet Earth, and it will likely be in the same position no matter what you do. So that is predetermined.

Like a short rod would appear to not have any flex. But if you give it length (time) it will have more possible outcomes and easily be flexible. That would be radiation from the mean. You can only radiate so far because you are constricted by the restrictions of space-time.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
I believe that if you were to calculate every single neural impulse going on inside a person's head, you would be able to exactly predict their behaviour every single time.

You may argue that a person does not choose the same option every single time. This is because the physical structure of the brain is constantly changing. The starting conditions are constantly changing. If you exactly know the structure of a person's brain, you can exactly predict their behaviour.

It is theoretically possible to exactly calculate the future of any system.

For example, to calculate the exact structure of the earth 1 year from right now, you would need mathematical equations for every single quantum particle located in a radius of 1 light-year from earth (because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

Theoretically possible, but practically very, very difficult.

So this is way out of my area expertise but I don't think this is entirely true. Nick Szabo alludes to the reason in his post on the "Singularity":

Another way to look at the limits of this hypothetical general AI is to look at the limits of machine learning. I've worked extensively with evolutionary algorithms and other machine learning techniques. These are very promising but are also extremely limited without accurate and complete simulations of an environment in which to learn. So for example in evolutionary techniques the "fitness function" involves, critically, a simulation of electric circuits (if evolving electric circuits), of some mechanical physics (if evolving simple mechanical devices or discovering mechanical laws), and so on.

These techniques only can learn things about the real world to the extent such simulations accurately simulate the real world, but except for extremely simple situations (e.g. rediscovering the formulae for Kepler's laws based on orbital data, which a modern computer with the appropriate learning algorithm can now do in seconds) the simulations are usually very woefully incomplete, rendering the results usually useless. For example John Koza after about 20 years of working on genetic programming has discovered about that many useful inventions with it, largely involving easily simulable aspects of electronic circults. And "meta GP", genetic programming that is supposed to evolve its own GP-implementing code, is useless because we can't simulate future runs of GP without actually running them. So these evolutionary techniques, and other machine learning techniques, are often interesting and useful, but the severely limited ability of computers to simulate most real-world phenomena means that no runaway is in store, just potentially much more incremental improvements which will be much greater in simulable arenas and much smaller in others, and will slowly improve as the accuracy and completeness of our simulations slowly improves.
Also related (and something I hardly know anything about): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
Current AI's do not function the same way as humans because they are built differently. Create a system with exactly the same atomic structure as a specific human and the new structure will behave in exactly the same way as the specific human.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
Is the idea of determinism correct? Does the probabilistic nature of quantum dynamics disprove determinism?
Bell's inequality is supposed to disprove local determinism (our view of determinism). Universal determinism is still possible (from G-d's POV).

Determinism is such a beautiful idea, it would be sad if it was incorrect.
Can you determine that determinism is determinable?

On a macro level determinism is pretty much irrefutable.
Macro determinism is about the average behaviour of trillions of trillions of molecules. Like tossing a coin a million times, and expecting around half will be heads, give or take a couple of thousand or so.

Determinism is correct. Free will is incorrect in the sense that every thought is governed by the laws of physics.
If we ever get to prove that everything is, which would require that we know literally everything that every subatomic particle ever did and every will do, and that the laws themselves require determinism be true, then that would be the case. If the universe is going to be around for another 13 billion years, then I think that we might have a long wait.

The uncertainty principle is simply light pushing electrons around. There is nothing mystical about the uncertainty principle. Small particles behave in exactly the same ways as large ones.
AFAIK, big particles, on the scale of Classical Physics, don't show the Uncertainty Principle, unlike the very small particles of subatomic and quantum phyics.

I believe that if you were to calculate every single neural impulse going on inside a person's head, you would be able to exactly predict their behaviour every single time.
That's called Newtonian physics. Basically, what we believed before Einstein, quantum mechanics and chaos theory.

It is theoretically possible to exactly calculate the future of any system.
There are actually calculable limits on that. For instance, a singularity is defined in mathematics, as a particle where we can at most make an educated guess what might happen there, but cannot exactly calculate what happens in that part of the system, based on what we know everywhere else. Black holes are an example of a singularity.

For example, to calculate the exact structure of the earth 1 year from right now, you would need mathematical equations for every single quantum particle located in a radius of 1 light-year from earth (because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

Theoretically possible, but practically very, very difficult.
Actually, we'd need everything that affected it between now and then. But then we'd also need to know what affected them, which includes those in a radius of 1 light-year around them, and what affected them, which includes those in a radius of light-year around them, and so on. Really, we'd need the information of the entire universe. We'd also need a suspension of the Uncertainty Principle, because energy is temporarily borrowed and lent between our universe and the Dirac Sea. So really, we need the Dirac Sea as well, which is far vaster than the particles in our known universe. In reality, the only reason why we aren't affected by anything outside of our universe, is only because it's a closed loop. Nothing outside can affect us. If it does, then it belongs in our universe.

The calculation would also require the data of the universe, which realistically would require a computer the size of the universe, which thus means that there wouldn't be room for it and us. So we couldn't build a computer big enough.

Very difficult indeed.
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
The calculation would also require the data of the universe, which realistically would require a computer the size of the universe, which thus means that there wouldn't be room for it and us. So we couldn't build a computer big enough.
Why would it require a computer the size of the universe?
We'd also need a suspension of the Uncertainty Principle, because energy is temporarily borrowed and lent between our universe and the Dirac Sea.
The uncertainty principle says nothing of the nature of reality, only the nature of our current methods of detecting reality.

WTF is the dirac sea? I googled it, it says dirac sea is another word for vacuum, which exists in our universe.
Actually, we'd need everything that affected it between now and then. But then we'd also need to know what affected them, which includes those in a radius of 1 light-year around them, and what affected them, which includes those in a radius of light-year around them, and so on. Really, we'd need the information of the entire universe.
Hmm, I think you're right. How can you know how particles on the edge of the 1 light year radius will behave unless you calculate the particles outside the range which can affect it?

I guess you can make non exact predictions for 1 year using a 1 light year radius.
AFAIK, big particles, on the scale of Classical Physics, don't show the Uncertainty Principle, unlike the very small particles of subatomic and quantum phyics.
That's because big particles are more or less electrically neutral, and not pushed around as much by EM field.

Also they have more mass, which makes it harder to push them around.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 7:01 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
to determine anything with absolute precision, we need all the data, because everything is interrelated.

in order to store and process all the data, we would need a medium. we would need to use all the quantum states, particles etc to represent all the quantum states, quantum states, particles etc. in effect we would have to dub the universe a model of itself. but we also need to be able to control everything. but there is no we, no subject, when something controls, i.e. is, everything - because then there is nothing else left, no object to define it by contrast.

such a computation is not a computation, just a cosmic tautology.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:01 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
to determine anything with absolute precision, we need all the data, because everything is interrelated.

in order to store and process all the data, we would need a medium. we would need to use all the quantum states, particles etc to represent all the quantum states, quantum states, particles etc. in effect we would have to dub the universe a model of itself. but we also need to be able to control everything. but there is no we, no subject, when something controls, i.e. is, everything - because then there is nothing else left, no object to define it by contrast.

such a computation is not a computation, just a cosmic tautology.

Yeah this is kind of what I was trying to get at at. Everything might be determined but it still may be impossible to predict or simulate with complete accuracy.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
Why would it require a computer the size of the universe?
Well, it's not me who said it. I read it somewhere. The idea is that if we want to put the universe on record, then we have to store all of its quantum data. So for every quantity or quality of every atom that could be represented as a bit (qubits), we need to store that. But that would also be effectively the smallest information store that we would have in a physical world. So, for each qubit, we need to store it, and for each qubit that we stored, we'd need a qubit. We'd need to store all the information of all the particles in the universe, which would in turn require the total usage of the same number of particles, and thus we'd need to use up all the particles in the universe. That's the theory, anyway.

Potentially, if there was redundancy, then we could compress that data. But there's 10^18 atoms in the known universe. So we'd have to discover a heck of a lot of redundancy in the universe. If even half of all the data in the universe was completely redundant, we'd still need a quantum supercomputer that was half the particles in the universe.

The uncertainty principle says nothing of the nature of reality, only the nature of our current methods of detecting reality.
That's correct by itself. However, you have to remember that it was based on our current knowledge of physics, and the laws of physics themselves. To find a new method to measure more accurately than the Uncertainty Principle says we can, we'd need to discover a whole new area of physics, say, subspace. So it's not about "our" current methods of detecting reality. The Uncertainty Principle is actually about what CAN be detected and measured, even by other particles in the interactions of the universe, according to "our" current understanding of physics.

In addition, physicists have also done experiments to see if Heisenberg was right. They've been able to determine using experiments that at certain times, energy has disappeared from very small areas, which violates the law of conservation, only to reappear a few micro-moments later, and a bit of energy appears out of nowhere, only to disappear a bit later. The amounts have been calculated to be below the Uncertainty Principle's threshold. So the principle seems to have been validated empirically. But it also means that the law of conservation of energy is only an approximation, and is in reality being violated all the time.

WTF is the dirac sea? I googled it, it says dirac sea is another word for vacuum, which exists in our universe.
Paul Dirac took on the challlenge of marrying relativity with electromagnetism. It was an awesome challenge. To achieve it, he came up with his own algebra, called the Dirac Algebra. He came up with the answer in the form of the Dirac Equation, which describes all of the known behaviours of electrons, in one simple equation. Well, it's simple, in that it's incredibly short. It only has 4 terms. But each term is really complex. Anyways, once he had the equation, he realised that it had 4 solutions, 2 of which are cases of known matter, but 2 of which are the exact opposites, which we call anti-matter. He thus concluded that anti-matter must exist as a natural by-product of the ways that matter works.

According to his equations, if an electron and an anti-electron, called a positron, collide, they will convert into pure energy. Energy is also capable of converting back into an electron and a positron. He then worked out that the matter in our universe could only be the result of all these collisions of matter and anti-matter. The entirety of our universe are the leftovers of such collisions. But the leftovers of such collisions would be tiny in comparison to the particles themselves. So in reality, there would have to have been much more miniature particles of matter and anti-matter constantly colliding and being formed from energy, than the total matter of the universe. One might say that our universe is the top of a giant ocean of such particles, which became known as the Dirac Sea.

One could describe the vacuum of our universe as the Dirac Sea. In a fashion, it's true, because we never see the Dirac Sea. We only see the matter of the universe that are the leftovers. But only if that vacuum is incredibly dense and chock-full of particles, and far more than that of the entire universe.

Hmm, I think you're right. How can you know how particles on the edge of the 1 light year radius will behave unless you calculate the particles outside the range which can affect it?

I guess you can make non exact predictions for 1 year using a 1 light year radius.

That's because big particles are more or less electrically neutral, and not pushed around as much by EM field.

Also they have more mass, which makes it harder to push them around.
That's basically how we do calculations. Most of our calculations are based on trillions of trillions of particles. E.G. the standard measure for the number of particles is the Avogadro Constant. It's the number of atoms in 12g of Carbon-12, which holds about 6x10^23 atoms, or 600 billion, trillion atoms. That's only in 12 grams. There's about 1 gram of carbon graphite in an average pencil. So that's 50 billion, trillion atoms, and that's not even including the wood.

So usually, even when we look at a speck of dust, we're still probably looking at least 1 trillion atoms just there. So in reality, almost every calculation we are dealing with, involves bodies with trillions of atoms in each one. We're rounding off to the nearest trillion, and our calculations are based on averages of trillions of atoms colliding with each other.

Take the law of conservation of matter/energy. Imagine if you had to assess the maximum fluctuation in the number of cars on the road, to the nearest trillion. There probably wouldn't even be a billion cars in existence for a hundred years. You'd end up concluding that on any one day, the changes to the nearest trillion are so small, that they're insignificant, and for all practical purposes, the number of cars stays the same. So you'd end up concluding that the number of cars is conserved. Well, that's what happens with matter, energy and momentum. Even if it was changing all the time, we'd still see changes that are far too insignificant to measure.

We'd only see changes on the individual level, by following a particular car's lifespan from production to destruction. That's what physicists are doing when they measure the small changes on the subatomic level, and there, we do see particles being created and destroyed, which shows that the energy levels of the universe are fluctuating. They're just far too small to even measure on any level above the level of subatomic physics. So the amount of energy in the universe appears to be conserved.
 

Redfire

and Blood
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
415
-->
The usual problem with this discussion is that there are two separate questions, that most people confuse:

1 - Is every event determined by previous causes?
2 - Is every event determinable by humans? That is, can we potentially discover all the causes that determine all the events?

You could rephrase that, but it's better to keep it simple. The first question is a no-brainer for me. I truly can't comprehend how could it be any other way. No one doubts that there is ONE past, so why would you doubt that there is ONE future? All events in the future are caused by events in the past (and present), that's obvious. Or do you think they have no causes? Cause and effect is a fundamental principle of the universe, there are no events without causes. It may often be the case that we don't or even can't know the cause, but so what? The cause is still there.
When I throw a dice, I have no idea what the outcome will be; and yet, there is only one possible outcome. Whether I know the outcome or not is irrelevant to the fact that the outcome is determined. The rest of the universe is just (far) more complex than throwing a dice, but the point is the same.

The second question is far more complicated, and to be honest I don't care that much about it. I definitely can't answer it with my current knowledge, and I'm suspicious of anyone that attempts to. I guess it would mean complete knowledge of the universe, but is that even possible? Maybe not. But the point is that it doesn't change anything; the fact that we don't know why something happens doesn't stop that thing from happening. Or do you think the earth didn't spin before humans knew it spinned?

By the way, the fact that your actions are determined does not make you any more or less free; just like the fact that love is the product of a bunch of chemicals interacting in your brain doesn't make it any more or less important.
 

herbert_quain

Member
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
27
-->
Location
Northern Europe
Honestly I can't imagine any alternative to determinism which make sense. Probability in quantum mechanics derives from our limit as observers, it is not intrinsic to the universe.
In any case reducing free will to quantum mechanics is one of biggest bullshit of modern age.
We are deterministic object and our will is the outcome of some electrochemical status in some part of our brain and that's it, even a child can get this.
 

k9b4

Banned
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
364
-->
Location
in a house
Honestly I can't imagine any alternative to determinism which make sense. Probability in quantum mechanics derives from our limit as observers, it is not intrinsic to the universe.
Agree 100%
We are deterministic object and our will is the outcome of some electrochemical status in some part of our brain and that's it, even a child can get this.
Yep, every thought is governed by the laws of physics and determinism. In this sense, free will is an illusion.

Though humans do possess neural circuits which allow us to plan, think, conceptualize and make decisions to further our own interests. In this sense we have free will (kind of).
The usual problem with this discussion is that there are two separate questions, that most people confuse:

1 - Is every event determined by previous causes?
2 - Is every event determinable by humans? That is, can we potentially discover all the causes that determine all the events?
I meant the first question.
According to his equations, if an electron and an anti-electron, called a positron, collide, they will convert into pure energy.
Thanks for your post, I have a problem with this statement (specifically the bolded part).

WTF is energy? Energy is just a concept, it doesn't exist in the same way that an electron or EM field exists. We say energy is being transferred between things, but really nothing physical is being transferred.

How can something convert into pure energy? That doesn't make sense because energy is not a thing.
 
Top Bottom