This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Determinism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, by what you said, apparent good is the beginning of free will.
End is philosophical jargon for purpose (put without the connotations of some intelligence) or culmination, as in the phrase 'ends justify the means.' I've never used the word beginning in any context related to that.
Post by
Skreeran
You had me going, Ivokk, until you mentioned
What The %$#@ Do We Know?
.
That's about as credible as
Zeitgeist
, unfortunately.
Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics
(one of my favorite sites) has
a page
for that movie.
I mean, I saw a segment from that movie without knowing which movie it was (I was using StumbleUpon), and I briefly thumbed it up because I love learning about quantum physics (even though it's hard to understand), so I can understand the appeal if you aren't aware of how much of a piece of New Age nonsense it is, but after learning more about the movie and how actual scientists have debunked it, I thumbed it back down.
Post by
Monday
Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics (one of my favorite sites)
=D
Post by
variable303
Well, I suppose you got me there. I don't have a very good understanding of quantum mechanics, but from what I understand, free particles can move and behave in certain ways without be acted upon by an outside force, which would throw a wrench in the idea of determinism on a quantum scale.
Still though, when I said that the universe is deterministic, I meant that on a macroscopic scale the universe is
mostly
deterministic, thanks to the far less "random" laws of gravity and electromagnetism that order the large scale universe.
I'm sort of in your boat.
Years ago, I was convinced that my life was predetermined due to the very things you mentioned in your initial post, cause and effect based on science and events in the material world tracing back to the beginning of time (if such a thing exists). Like you, I did believe that I had free will, but that it was somewhat of an illusion in that any choice I made would be the choice I would have always made. In short, I didn't believe anything could possibly be random.
However, quantum mechanics does make me question my initial perspective. While I'm also not an expert in quantum mechanics, I have learned that randomness
can
exist, albeit on a level outside the realm classical Newtonian physics.
So now, I'm back to being unsure. Does the micro randomness occuring at a subatomic level influence the macro world enough to unhinge deterministic cause and effect? Or is classical physics, which isn't perfect, enough to maintain it?
Post by
Skreeran
Well, I suppose you got me there. I don't have a very good understanding of quantum mechanics, but from what I understand, free particles can move and behave in certain ways without be acted upon by an outside force, which would throw a wrench in the idea of determinism on a quantum scale.
Still though, when I said that the universe is deterministic, I meant that on a macroscopic scale the universe is
mostly
deterministic, thanks to the far less "random" laws of gravity and electromagnetism that order the large scale universe.
I'm sort of in your boat.
Years ago, I was convinced that my life was predetermined due to the very things you mentioned in your initial post, cause and effect based on science and events in the material world tracing back to the beginning of time (if such a thing exists). Like you, I did believe that I had free will, but that it was somewhat of an illusion in that any choice I made would be the choice I would have always made. In short, I didn't believe anything could possibly be random.
However, quantum mechanics does make me question my initial perspective. While I'm also not an expert in quantum mechanics, I have learned that randomness
can
exist, albeit on a level outside the realm classical Newtonian physics.
So now, I'm back to being unsure. Does the micro randomness occuring at a subatomic level influence the macro world enough to unhinge deterministic cause and effect? Or is classical physics, which isn't perfect, enough to maintain it?Well, it's a simple question really:
How much of your thought is influence by the random effects of quantum mechanics (atomic decay, quantum entanglement, etc.)?
From what I understand, most of my brain's activity is caused by chemical (and electrical, to some extent) reactions, rather than any quantum effects, so it stands to reason that our thoughts are still more or less deterministic.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I didn't write the book Squish =) If you don't like his word choice, send him an
e-mail
. I don't feel I'm really in a place to argue with (nor speak for) the author. Quantum Theory isn't
based
on Bell's Theorem though... Bell's Theorem simply set out to disprove the local hidden variable theory advocated by Einstein and friends in their attempt to
disprove
Quantum Theory.
Hehe, I know. I'm not really that across it all either, but as far as I understand, there's been no settled arguments on either side. The inherent problem is that one side can't prove their case (local hidden variables), and the other side's principle says that it's impossible to
prove
it either which way. So their arguments are really a lost cause =)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, that I said. By nature we strive for what we see as the best, and that is what we call an apparent good. The apparent goo is determined by sense knowledge of a situation and any other knowledge you have relevant to the situation. One you have an end to strive for, then you can will it and decide how to achieve it.
Post by
variable303
Well, it's a simple question really:
How much of your thought is influence by the random effects of quantum mechanics (atomic decay, quantum entanglement, etc.)?
From what I understand, most of my brain's activity is caused by chemical (and electrical, to some extent) reactions, rather than any quantum effects, so it stands to reason that our thoughts are still more or less deterministic.
Correct, from what I understand, brain activity does function via chemical and electrical reactions. Because so, Newtonian physics
should
still apply, making such functions 'theoretically' predictable.
However, there's still so much we don't know about quantum mechanics, and for all I know, maybe quantum mechanics does play a role in how we function that hasn't been discovered yet. I guess I'm hesitant to place too much faith into only what is known, because looking at our scientific knowledge on a larger scale, we could still be in an infantile stage.
Basically, it comes down the fact that I can never possibly be sure. I'm just going to chill, enjoy life, and be the best person I'm capable of being. That's really all I can do :D
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
So their arguments are really a lost cause =)
Which is what makes the agnostic position so appealing =) For my own part, I'm only concerned with whether or not the theory adequately explains and predicts things that I work with. When it comes to solid state electronics and nano-scale integration, the current theory works better than anything else at explaining observations in reality -- the
interpretation
of the theory isn't really that important.
I like to think of what I've learned as a tool; what's important is only whether or not it works. I worry myself with what's under the hood about as much as I worry about what will happen to me after I die (which is not very much -- I really like the quote by Pauli above). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for theoretical physicists looking for something better, but until someone finds a clearly defined and repeatable case (in a field that concerns me) where quantum theory fails (similar to cases presented against classical mechanics which led to the development of quantum theory in the first place), I'm satisfied using it as is =)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
By nature we strive for what we see as the best, and that is what we call an apparent good.
That's the cause right there. Hence determinism. The end you speak of is actually the cause.
How is something that is subjectively decided in any way determinism?
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You are built. You are built to do what's best for you. You are given information. You do what's best for you based on the information. There's no subjectivity there. Only determinism.
Except
you
determine what's best for you and how to obtain it. We're not talking about objective good.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where did you pull that
you
from? There's another
you
in you?
You
determines based on what? Not the goal for best? not the given information?
You don't know "you" means? You. The person. The individual. You determine what is best for you. We call that the apparent good. In order to make this decision, you need both universal information (from your intellect) and specific information (from your senses), or else you'll just be guessing what to do completely randomly.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, it's a simple question really:
How much of your thought is influence by the random effects of quantum mechanics (atomic decay, quantum entanglement, etc.)?
From what I understand, most of my brain's activity is caused by chemical (and electrical, to some extent) reactions, rather than any quantum effects, so it stands to reason that our thoughts are still more or less deterministic.
Correct, from what I understand, brain activity does function via chemical and electrical reactions. Because so, Newtonian physics
should
still apply, making such functions 'theoretically' predictable.
However, there's still so much we don't know about quantum mechanics, and for all I know, maybe quantum mechanics does play a role in how we function that hasn't been discovered yet. I guess I'm hesitant to place too much faith into only what is known, because looking at our scientific knowledge on a larger scale, we could still be in an infantile stage.
Basically, it comes down the fact that I can never possibly be sure. I'm just going to chill, enjoy life, and be the best person I'm capable of being. That's really all I can do :DSee, in that case, rather than assume that there quantum physics does play a role in how we function because we don't know everything about it, I would go with what we do know, and change my understanding of the universe accordingly
if
new evidence arises.
I've been reading Dawkins'
Unweaving The Rainbow
in the past weeks, and I am reminded of a quote I read in a recent chapter:
Clarke's Third Law does not work in reverse. Given that 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic', is does
not
follow that 'Any magical claim that anybody may make at any time is indistinguishable from a technological advance that will come in the future."
Where "technological advances" are "discoveries into the nature of the universe," in this case. Just because it may happen that we might discover than quantum mechanics play a larger part in our functions than we now believe, that doesn't mean that we should assume that we will. And, considering that, we would be best served to base our judgments on what we now know, rather than what we may perhaps possibly discover to be the case in the future.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Exactly, and why do you not call it determinism then?
Because it's not...?
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.