Fate and determinism

No single particle is not you, it is the combination of all the particles that create your consciences. And your decisions come from much larger processes than a single particle hence the small discrepencies caused by HUP should have very little effect on the result. And again you are re-labeling random chance with choice. Alright if you define random chance as a choice then it is a choice in that regards but you are not communicating any information. It's like calling god a chair, then proving the chair exists hence god exists. It is pointless.

 

OK so I looked up the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It was very confusing. The gist of it that I got was that you have a pair of values. The more accurate you measure one value, the less accurate the other value can be, because of the nature of the two values. This applies to determinism because it would then be impossible to accurately measure both values in a pair so as to predict the future.

Higgs argues that the inaccuracies produced by HUP are insignificant, and that a machine that 'mostly accurately' measures all values of all particles in a closed system can predict the future states of all particles within that system 'mostly accurately.' He also argues that there is no random chance produced by quantum mechanics that is significant enough to affect the accuracy of this machine.

Jasmine argues that the quantum mechanics occurring in this closed system are affected by her ability to "choose" as a human being, while Higgs claims that she is defining chance as choice, and that both are insignificant to his future-predicting device anyway.

Everything I state assumes that the above is true.

There is choice. This is the nature of life. Living things make choices, non-living things do not. The ability to choose is a property of life. While life is present in the closed system, choice is also present. Any device designed to predict the future in a closed system containing life must be able to measure not only all values of all particles, but all processes involved in making a choice, which I'm guessing would include things such as the complete history of all currently living things within the system, the will within each living thing, and the desires this will is linked to. A living entity of multiple particles is going to have different values than each individual particle that makes up that entity, and these values must be taken in to consideration.

I have nothing to say about chance, because I'm assuming it is linked to quantum mechanics, that I know nothing of.


Does any of this have any intellectual value to the thread at all? I'm hoping I'm understanding everything clearly enough...

 

I love discussions like these, really gets the mind working. Anyway on with the ramblings of fate/ quantuam mechanics/ probabillity/ chaos theory/ determinism and HUP.

My one question about all of this, is why we need to know this. Sure it's useful in determinning when resources will be depleted, but other then that there's really no point and if we do find a usable system to predict the future should it be used?

With Fate your life is on a set path, where's the fun in thinking that way about life? Though i guess it would depend on the path.

 

Does the machine take itself in to it's calculations? If so, your future would be ever-changing, as you gain knowledge of your future. Knowing your future would change your future, and then the machine would spit out the changed future, which would change again because you would know of the future again. Essentially, it would be impossible to ever know the future, because once you did, it would change because you now know it.

 

The machine is a thought experiment. It is not relevant I introduced it only to demnstrate that future can be very accurately predicted given enough data thus there is something such as fate.

 

We don't really know this. There is large scale brain activity, that does something, but it cannot be the force of choice. It may be misleading.

I've already introduced chaos as a way that the very small can affect large.

False analogy.

One of the first things we do when we study chaos theory is to consider how to identify something as being truely random, (as opposed to something deliberate, like a computed pattern). The realisation is that you cannot. Your argument can be inverted. How do you manage to identify something as random chance? You commit yourself into believing it. You are educated that way. We all are. But we should realise that we at fault to make such an assumption.

Physics doesn't seek to be philosophy. It doesn't try to explain things or derive meaning or reason. It is a science.

And what science does is observe a behavior enough to corroborate rule or law which describes that behaviour consistently. That's the scientific method. No more, no less.

But with quantum behaviour, science cannot form such a law, because of the nature of the system, so default to the non-explanation of it being random.

Random isn't a theory. It merely denotes an absence of knowledge, and as such, it's the most insubstantial concept we can define.

Again, with science being the process of corroborating fixed rules, "random" is an adequate description where there is an absence of a rule, but at no point does that become an explanation or an understanding of a thing.

Science cannot differentiate between random chance and choice, because both would manifest as an absence of a fixed rule.

 

Your argument is self-defeating. You argue that we cant know if it is a choice or if it is just random chance and then go on labeling it a choice.
We observe random chance. If it is indeed a choice which to me seems absurd then we have not desifered it yet and for all intents and purposes we can assume that it is indeed just random chance until proven otherwise.
And if you read carefuly what I wrote you would know I took chaos theory into account. We dont know how big of an effect does it have and I stated that fact. In my model I am assuming that it has rather small effect on our macro world and would take longer period of time to accumulate to a significant discrepancy. Then again even if it had huge effect it is a random chance manifesting at a large scale, not free thought or a choice under any common definition.
And no it is not false analogy.

 

I've given you an alternative interpretation of the data. You're determined to interpret an absence of a fixed rule as random chance, and disregard the possibility of it being choice, even though you know you cannot discriminate between these two possibilities.

I think that clarifies what this whole thread is really all about for you.

 

And I am telling you that interpretation is unsupported. You don't get to make stuff up and then be offended when someone who actually cares about reality informs you that your view of the reality is not equal to all other views of reality and that you are indeed wrong.

 

Egad, it seems that we are dealing with an argument of personal conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Here is a video I found that might clear up this probability nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
(the rest of the series which video comes from should be avoided due to God being shown as the solution to this Quantum confusion)
Here the video shows that the electrons are both waves and particles. This is the duality aspect to the particles. If Quantum was a probability then wouldn’t there be some particles and some waves present in the experiments? Yet there are only one state present in each, never the both.
(If I’m making a completely bad rebuttal could someone inform me? Using my rusty physics knowledge here)

 

Enough guys, enough. There is nothing else that I love more than discussion but there is only so much that I am willing to forgive to. If you are one of those people who insist that behaviour of quantum particles is a choice and not just probability do this:
Go to any peer-reviewed study or an article on concerning quantum physics, hit ctrl+F and type the words 'probability' and 'chance'. Count how many hits you get and then do the same for 'choice'. Noticed anything?
What am I trying to say here is that if you are going to re-interpret known scientific models and theories and claim something in addition to what is commonly accepted the burden of proof is on YOU!
You do not get to spew a bunch of non-sence in 30 seconds and then leave me to make a refutation for at least 30 minutes. That is not just how a debate works it's outright rude!

 

i made a list of six things i should do regarding the this thread, then i rolled a d6, hence now I am done with this conversation till order is restored.

 

If you are going to make a claim that an absence of a fixed rule is implying random chance, the burden of proof is with you actually.

If you believe you have a method to scientifically discriminate between chance from choice, then show me it, and I will happily review it. Without that, you presenting faith as fact when you say that some event is random chance.

Just because one interpretation happens to be popular or more appealing, is neither here nor there. Truth is not a democracy, otherwise we'd still have the flat earth society.

Unfortunately this proof is impossible for you to make, as you cannot scientifically discriminate between chance and choice. Science is incomplete.

 

First you post:

Then you go and say this:

If you claim something is impossible to know please distance yourself from speculating and then treating your unsupported hypothesis with the same respect as you treat a theory that is supported by scientific consensus, experimental evidence and mathematics.

However debates are never really about persuading the other side but about persuading the audience that is monitoring the debate.
I will reiterate one more time; Not for you but for anyone else who is reading this.
Sub-atomic particles do not have free will. Remember that even if they did that would still not necessarily mean that we do, but again it is pointless to speculate because they do not have free will. Particles behave based on probabilty distribution. That is a fact. I am sorry if you like to call rolling a 4 on a dice a 'choice of the dice'. It still does not make it have a choice.
You are not going about some individual interpretation here. It's not a debate about someones favourite music. You are directly challenging the standing explenation for the behaviour of particles at quantum scale. That is huge and you better have hell of a good evidence to support your claim. In which case please don't waste your time on me, get it peer-reviewed and win the Nobel prize.

 

Then we would get nowhere. Speculation is crucial for learning.

consensus does not define truth.

which supports both interpretations equally.

which also supports both interpretations equally.

 

Speculation based on evidence gets us somewhere. You speculate about what the answer could be based on no evidence and then give it the same credit as you give to the standing scientific explanation.

Science gives us the best approximation of the answer. Of course we can be wrong but based on current evidence we are most likely correct.

No it does not unless you think that the particles choose to appear to be in perfect synchronization with what we would expect to be the results of pure chance. If their decisions are indistinguishable from pure chance then I am sorry to inform you: They behave according to the laws of probabilty.
I can actually use my diagram which I use to argue with theist apologetics:

Just replace the supernatural transcendent dice with 'choice' and the non-existent dice with 'probability'. They are the same. If particles do have a choice they choose to behave exactly the same as chance hence we can and must say that they behave according to chance.





And we are starting to move in circles so feel free to have your closing statement and let others draw their own conclusion. I don't see a way how rational thinking person could come in agreement with 'your interpretation'.

 

NECRO POST, dun DUN DUUUUUUN!

I think I finally found where your beliefs on 'quantum consciousness' originated from:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-4-1
I was linked this for a different reason on during a discussion on an unrelated subject but it reminded me of 'What the bleep do we know?' and this discussion.

So I start watching it not knowing what is it about.
5 minutes pass and I think to myself "Prettu smart guy".
15 minutes pass and I hear the word "quantum" for the 100th time. I begin to grow suspicious.
20 minutes pass and I've had enough to encourage me to google his name.
Well what do you know, my bull**** censor is getting better. First I notice that he starred in 'What the bleep do we know?' which is in it of itself a big red flag. Then I read that he studied biology and psychology which doesn't seem to qualify him to use the word 'quantum' more times in one lecture that my physics professor in the entire year. And finally there are numerous physicists criticizing his theories and demonstrating that his assumptions are debunked by simple calculations.

Now he might be one of the smartest and most well educated woo woos out there but he still deliver on his burden of proof. (Perhaps calling him a woo woo is a bit too harsh but he's still wrong and I am getting tired of people subtituting the word magic by the word quantum)

 

Thank-you for the link. I hadn't heard of 'quantum consciousness' before, and what I wrote above came from my own thinking.


Like most scientists, I am motivated by a desire for truth and with a similar degree of rigor. So I don't have beliefs as such, and I'm acutely aware of what I know and don't know.

Scientists tend to draw conclusions and uphold their conclusions as 'truth' until evidence challenges it. Where I break away from these scientists is that I'm more honest about what I don't know, and I'll weigh conclusions on a scale of likelihood and compatibility, and when I have original thoughts they are weighed and constructed on those same terms.

I am more intuitive than I am scientific, and this is by choice. My intuition is exceptionally sharp.

 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

By your own admission then, truth is a democracy.



Sorry, just having fun at the pissing contest this looks like it turned into. Also my undergrad background was in the social sciences, and consensus/perception often defines the "truth" that matters in our social dealings, making it just as important as it is dangerous.