A truly terrifying thought!

Open Forum in English
141

@Victor, who wrote:

“Ilya, should I remind you that (1) quantum mecanics is not The Ultimate Rule For All The Subjects Of Our Universe”, (2) to which every photon must obey, but just more or less exact an approximation? (3) If you think that it fully describes something, tell me, relying on its wavefunction, when a single atom will decompose and in which directions the parts will go?

Victor, (2) and (3) are easy and I am not longer in a hurry (sorry for not noticing your post before) . I will start with (3), moreover you sayid the thing equivalent to (3) repeatedly when e.g. you said that the quantum mechanics (QM) could not now the [simultaneous] speed and the position of a particle.

In discussing (3) , I am not diccussing whether QM is correct, but only what it states.

The interpretation that originates from Niels Bohr states that certain things, such as simultaneus speed and position of a particle simply do not exist in the REAL world of the REAL microscopic particles. Not because QM in not full or flawed, but because such things do NOT exist in the REAL world. (They don’t have to, argued Bohr. Do not tell God what it has to be.)

However, QM suggests another description ( one of a few equivalent forms of which is via the wave function).

From this description, our common concepts, such as, for example, simultaneous speed and position of a HUGE congramelate of many particles, APROXIMATELY follow. These concepts are approximations only.

From the world of micro, the MACRO concepts must follow, not the other way round. The MACRO concepts, are approximate concepts, they are not full, they do not HAVE to work in the micro-world.

And along the same vien your (2). The wave function would not tell you when the single atom will decompose AND where the fragments will flew (but it will tell you the probabilities of these events taken separately) not because it is (QM states) an incomplete description. It is because the nature wors so. You know that, were it possible, the stable atoms could not exist.

It is the heart of Quantum mechanics. I would not check my spelling, sorry.

Note tha on becoming very good when in the world in the, with the approximation becoming very- very good in the world where huge conglomerates of such particles.

142

@ Victor’s (2) - " to which every photon must obey"

Yes, to the current state of the knowledge, every photons are equivalent (but the may be in different quantum states), all the electrons are the same, all the protons are the same.

(1) quantum mecanics is not The Ultimate Rule For All The Subjects Of Our Universe" -
Many professionals believe that theay are currently on the edge of the Unified theory, the dream of Einstein, extermely full understandin. The characteristic features of such ultimate underatanding, or unified theor, are: the properties of all known particles follow, the dimension of the space follow, and all the interactions follow from this theory in a unified manner. Requeres a tremendous free will to even follow it in a poular scientific literature.

143

@ Dooo, who wrote in respose to Rohr’s "would you assign free will to a computer program? A computer program can still analyse phenomena, for example data, and reveal a certain truth about them "

=> “This is a false analogy. Computers analyse data because they were designed to do so by a human.”

People who work in the areia of artifical intelect would not call it a false analogy. I read how computer programs give birth to child programs, pass a computerised “natural selection”, select and refine their certain features, with the “best” features being inherited by the next generation of the programs. If, at certain stage, the researcher stops to control which features “to select”, the programs select them for themselves (on their will), and their evolution continues, with “natural” improvement in new every generation. The only difference is that we do not exactly know how the natural evolutionon on Earth had started. With the programs, we knew how it happened.

144

@rohr"It is our nature as humans to ask these questions"

to ask these questions, yes, and people really interested in them become scientists. or philosophers (btw, see below why I think that the questions you stated are not in the same category as prewritteness). But - to go around telling people that they must be shocked/pleased/terrified/interested by something that on a human scale doesn’t affect their lives and not being able to understand when they say they are not shocked (therefore assuming that they must have not understood the question if they don’t share your feelings), well that’s a different thing.

the absolutely crucial question here is - would it ever be possible to prove or disprove the potential prewritteness of the universe, from within that prewritteness?* if the answer is ‘no’ then this ceases to be a scientific question and becomes totally irrelevant.

*from a little thinking, it seems to me that the answer is ‘no’ - in order to prove that those ‘emergences’ in complex phenomenons are not truly new qualities, you would need a computer able to simulate all possible level of complexity that could be out there (and consequently prove or disprove the new quality of ‘emergences’). the question of possibility of constructing such computer aside - from all we know, the number of these levels of complexity may as well be infinite. we do not know what is outside our universe and is the complexity limited only to the matter/energy/time of our universe (or is it already infinite within our universe). Therefore, we cannot ever be sure that at some level of complexity there is no ‘emergence’ that is indeed new, unpredictable quality. And if prewritteness can’t be proved nor disproved then it’s not a scientific question.
Would it be possible to prove it from outside of our universe, as Ilya already reminded you - if even less relevant (scientific).
yes, everything is possible: we maybe living in a prewritten universe which might have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure - but from our point of view - if we can’t prove it or disprove it, it is irrelevant for the scientific discussion.

questions of origin of our universe (at least from the very first moment of big bang onwards) and alien life in it do not fall into same category as ‘from within unprovable, undetectable’ prewritteness - these two questions can be discussed and proved/detected from within our universe.

I agree with Ilya that much more relevant question is what is it that we are understanding with all our science?
"“What is meaning of [true?] understanding of the Universe by biological mashines, which are but small part of the Universe.”

145

I like your formulation Aineko (as that you have liked mine :wink: ) :

“What is it that we are understanding with all our science?”
“What is the meaning of [true?] understanding of the Universe by biological mashines, which are but small part of the Universe.”

We certainly understand Something, the situation is not as bad as Victor could have pictured it. I am not that familiar with the relevant philosophical thought (Is it called Epistemology?) and would be keen to Keep It Simple and Stupid :wink:

146

Dear Friedemann,

You started this thread with the expression “if I were to tell you that your free will is just an illusion.”

According to your definition of “free will,” it is “unlimited power to make decisions that are truly free and not constrained by other phenomena.”

Many of us do not think that we have such power as a living thing in a physical world and as a member of society or an actor within social systems. Yes, It is an illusion or an idea. But I do not agree with you on your following deduction.
"If free will is an illusion, there is no guilt, no merit, no real control over one’s own life . . . "

If you drive a car drunk, you will be arrested, but the car will not be arrested because it is just a machine, although it might be confiscated from you. Our society prohibits drunk driving because it is dangerous to us all. Do you think that prohibiting drunk driving is against some laws of physics?

Thank you for giving us a very interesting topic.

Yutaka

147

"as a living thing in a physical world and as a member of society or an actor within social systems. "
Should I have used plural forms such as living things, members, and actors in my sentence?

148

Yutaka,

let me start out by saying that I find your English excellent, even though I am no authority on that.

You make an excellent point: nobody would send a car to prison. Now if we are also machines, more complex ones but still machines, can we be sent to prison? That is of course the ethical aspect of this interesting debate here.

Even though I am still reeling from this epic thread, I tend to think it is good that we have rules and laws. However, I do think, as Aineko and some prominent researchers have put it, the freedom of our conscious mind might in fact be very limited.

This whole debate has really stirred my interest in human psychology. I think I’ll start by reading the book by Dr. Dennis M. Wegner called “The illusion of conscious will”.

It is interesting that this topic has generated so much interest.

149

Dooo said:

“This is a false analogy. Computers analyse data because they were designed to do so by a human.”

In fact it is a great analogy to understand the concept of determinism. But if you don’t like it, take simpler lifeforms like fish or insects that probably don’t have a conscious mind. Yet they probe their environment and act accordingly. If they “perceive” a situation as dangerous, they will defend themselves or flee. Recognition and decision making does not imply free will.

150

“In fact it is a great analogy to understand the concept of determinism.”

Bluntly asserting something is great is not the same as actually explaining it.

(You make a point of mentioning that you have to scroll up to see something I wrote… well I often feel like you often don’t actually address my questions until they are asked 2 or 3 times. but anyway… )

"take simpler lifeforms like fish or insects that probably don’t have a conscious mind. Yet they probe their environment and act accordingly. If they “perceive” a situation as dangerous, they will defend themselves or flee. Recognition and decision making does not imply free will. "

I am not sure your conclusion follows from your premises here. What about flight or fight in insects discounts free will?

151

"If they “perceive” a situation as dangerous, they will defend themselves or flee. Recognition and decision making does not imply free will. "

If man should make decisions only when he perceives a situation as dangerous I’d agree with you and determinism and lack of free will.
But your affirmation contradicts yourself. Men makes decisions under many assumptions, many of wich aren’t a dangerous situation or animalist instincts. Man would also sacrifice himself for a stranger or for a principle, or for a faith. He can also take a decision against his most immediate and even not immediate gain. That is free will and I really don’t think all the determinism (a faith itself at this stage) followers could ever explain that and certainly that is not been explained in this discussion, in my opinion.

152

I wonder if psychologists are more suitable for the finance minister or for the members of a jury? Do you suppose that physical scientists who have read one psychology book or two are more suitable than ordinary people for the members of a jury?

153

Dooo said:

"In fact it is a great analogy to understand the concept of determinism.

Bluntly asserting something is great is not the same as actually explaining it.

(You make a point of mentioning that you have to scroll up to see something I wrote… well I often feel like you often don’t actually address my questions until they are asked 2 or 3 times. but anyway… )"

I know that discussions on internet forums are not always easy because it is difficult to judge each others emotions. I am a bit confused so let me ask you a simple question: Is there some hostility in your posts towards me? I was thinking that because I told you about my first name, asked you some questions which you ignored and the above post doesn’t sound really friendly either.

“What about flight or fight in insects discounts free will?”

The fact that the insect recognises danger and makes decisions without having free will.

154

Rohr,

“What about flight or fight in insects discounts free will?”

The fact that the insect recognises danger and makes decisions without having free will. "

Someone would say that those are not decisions but instincts based on direct gain about survival. You can foresee what a spider will do in a fight (with great accuracy ad entomoligysts know) but you can’t equally foresee what a man will do in an equal fight. He could have mercy on his opponent or he could kill him without thinking twice.
Don’t you think this is free will? If not what are the deterministic factors that could help you foresee this decision with a good grade of accuracy (may I say with 100% of accuracy?)?

155

@Ilya

At last you’ve said it yourself: POPULAR SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. You don’t answer on my strait questions but give a lot of examples from such sort of literature. I even can’t understand do you agree with me or not?

In unpteenth time, as short as I can:

A menu on your table is not the meal. Laws of physics don’t exist in real world but only in your head.

Do you agree? Yes or not?

156

“Ilya, should I remind you that (1) quantum mecanics is not The Ultimate Rule For All The Subjects Of Our Universe”, (2) to which every photon must obey,(2.1) but just more or less exact an approximation? (3) If you think that it fully describes something, tell me, relying on its wavefunction, when a single atom will decompose and in which directions the parts will go?

(4)Laws of physics don’t exist in real world but only in your head.

(2) - I have answered
(2.1) -I forgot to answer - I agree to this
(3) I have described as I could
(4) rather disagree, but there are no proofs, of course, as it is the (main!) philosophical question.
Related to what I would most be intersting to discuss here. As Aineko put it, what is that we are understanding with all our science

My mentioning of the poular sci. literature was related to the Unified Theory (The string theory, M-theories, etc).

I would be not able to communicte for a while. I answer you to my pleasure.

157

"The fact that the insect recognises danger and makes decisions without having free will. "

This is more question begging.

"the above post doesn’t sound really friendly either. "

I am confused as to why you would come to that conclusion. I observed the same events in your interaction with Steve and to some extent Aineko and I was confused by your reactions in those cases too.

It was nice while it lasted but this is the end for me in this interaction.

158

Friedemann is scientifically predetermined to question the motives of people who disagree with him and to disapprove of their debating style. It is not for us to judge him, since he has no choice in the matter, even if we are scientifically predetermined to want to do so, otherwise this thread will never end.

159

Have I got this right so far?

If there were free will, we can choose to be depressed about it or not.

If there were no free will, there’s no point in being depressed about it - unless it were preordained, in which case there’d be no point in being depressed about it.

Most of you seem to have enjoyed this discussion.

The only thing missing is an agreement about how to measure the unmeasurable.