Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
On the topic of free will, I personally think that allowances must be made for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Roughly, our free will arises from the ability of our consciousness select from the vast sea of probable realities the singular cohesive and actual reality that conforms with our individual and collective expectations and ideals. On the one hand, every conceivable set of circumstances actualizes necessarily, but on the other hand we have trained our ego consciousnesses to accept as "real" the singular set of circumstances that actualize at the intersection of our private realities with others. This is compounded by the fact that we only acknowledge our identities at this intersection, and do not ordinarily consider our greater identities to simultaneously exist in the parallel strands of reality in which portions of our consciousnesses have chosen to alternatively focus.
Until our ideas about free will take this into account, IMO, discussions on the topic will be fruitless.
Until our ideas about free will take this into account, IMO, discussions on the topic will be fruitless.
Why does anyone or anything need to actually know the future in order for the future be only able to play out in one way? Maybe it's not exactly determinism, but I wonder if we're not actually on rails so-to-speak. After all, a domino set in motion certainly doesn't know that it's a domino set in motion. Of course a domino doesn't know anything as far as we know, but set on a large enough scale you could say that our knowledge is roughly equivalent to that of a domino, or some value approaching zero.
I don't need a that-which-determines in order to entertain the thought that whatever is going to happen could only happen in one way regardless of whether I or anyone/anything knows that way. It's not a fully fleshed-out theory I know. Any thoughts?
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Thoughts? We're not dominoes. There is never only one likely result. And that you've allowed some form of ideology to confuse your thought processes. I don't know of any scientific minds that would agree with you. A lot of religious ones would though....
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
All opinions are not equally valid. Nice cop-out though. :roll:
edit: You've totally and completely discounted complexity and chaos theories though, i.e. that similar circumstances can create different results due to tiny and subtle differences. Nice work!
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
All opinions are not equally valid. Nice cop-out though. :roll:
cop out?
My sig applies to me as well as anyone, if that wasn't clear.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Because without knowing the future, there's no way to prove that it was determinism. You can't say, "I knew you were going to make that decision," after the decision has been made.
Right there is why we can't really "know" what a person will do - we'd need an exact model of a person's mind at one point in time. I think that Heisenberg would have something to say about that, something about it not being possible.Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
But assuming it were possible to obtain such accurate information, then a sufficiently powerful computer would be needed to model the behavior of the measured neurons. If it could do that, it could then determine exactly how the model would respond to stimuli. Of course, the stimuli incoming would also be incredibly complex. Just dealing with the sensations associated with having a body attached to the brain harboring that mind would be an immense undertaking to simulate accurately.
You'd need the best SimPerson game ever created, able to recreate everything, down to the last photon, at a speed faster than realtime. God's version of SimPerson.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
All opinions are not equally valid. Nice cop-out though. :roll:
cop out?
My sig applies to me as well as anyone, if that wasn't clear.
Your opinion is nonsense. See my edit above. Physical laws do not eliminate things like chance and chaos. Or (as in Garth's post) the possibility that all possibilities exist simultaneously and "reality" is merely our choice of which possibility to follow (this is BTW the opinion most popular in quantum sciences at this time BTW).
Your cop-out is to straw man religious determinism as having scientific backing. It doesn't.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
All opinions are not equally valid. Nice cop-out though. :roll:
cop out?
My sig applies to me as well as anyone, if that wasn't clear.
Your opinion is nonsense. See my edit above. Physical laws do not eliminate things like chance and chaos. Or (as in Garth's post) the possibility that all possibilities exist simultaneously and "reality" is merely our choice of which possibility to follow (this is BTW the opinion most popular in quantum sciences at this time BTW).
Your cop-out is to straw man religious determinism as having scientific backing. It doesn't.
I don't see how chance and chaos can be interpreted as free will.
What do you mean, that the consciousness selects from the vast sea of probable realities the cohesive and actual reality? How do you anticipate such channels of "selection" when the MWI more or less says each one is on their own branch? (Even unconsciously, hell, particularly unconsciously.)
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Because without knowing the future, there's no way to prove that it was determinism. You can't say, "I knew you were going to make that decision," after the decision has been made.
Right there is why we can't really "know" what a person will do - we'd need an exact model of a person's mind at one point in time. I think that Heisenberg would have something to say about that, something about it not being possible.Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
But assuming it were possible to obtain such accurate information, then a sufficiently powerful computer would be needed to model the behavior of the measured neurons. If it could do that, it could then determine exactly how the model would respond to stimuli. Of course, the stimuli incoming would also be incredibly complex. Just dealing with the sensations associated with having a body attached to the brain harboring that mind would be an immense undertaking to simulate accurately.
You'd need the best SimPerson game ever created, able to recreate everything, down to the last photon, at a speed faster than realtime. God's version of SimPerson.
Yes, I agree with this. There's no way to repeat an experiment to test this with exactly the same starting circumstances.
I believe in existentialim's simple definition of free will. A man's existence preceedes his essence.
Rogo
Rogo
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gibsons
A brain is a collection of nerves, which are just cells. A cell is just a machine made of molecules (though a very complex one), and a brain is just a very complex collection of those cells.
Every molecule in the brain is subject to physical laws, whether thermodynamic or quantum or whatever. Every nerve that fires or doesn't fire does so in accordance with those laws. AFAIK our thoughts and actions are nothing but nerves firing or not firing - I'm a compulsive reductionist on things like this, so I inevitably move the idea of "thought" down to ion channels either opening or not opening. In the end, it's just molecules, orbitals, brownian motion... no ghost in the machine.
But see my sig.
All opinions are not equally valid. Nice cop-out though. :roll:
cop out?
My sig applies to me as well as anyone, if that wasn't clear.
Your opinion is nonsense. See my edit above. Physical laws do not eliminate things like chance and chaos. Or (as in Garth's post) the possibility that all possibilities exist simultaneously and "reality" is merely our choice of which possibility to follow (this is BTW the opinion most popular in quantum sciences at this time BTW).
Your cop-out is to straw man religious determinism as having scientific backing. It doesn't.
I don't see how chance and chaos can be interpreted as free will.
Any more so than prediction could be interpreted as determinism, eh?
SoulAssassin
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2001
- 6,135
- 2
- 0
we should also discuss how it's possible to have an omnipotent god who knows the future and the past as well as us having free will
Ruptga
Lifer
- Aug 3, 2006
- 10,246
- 207
- 106
It's stupid to try and say that we're 100% absolutely free, for example we know that people that have been in combat are statistically more nervous than the general public. However, on the other side of the coin, I believe it's pretty stupid to say we're all glorified chain reactions and have no real say in what we do or don't do.
Simply put, we can't deny that circumstances shape us, and we can't deny that we make choices every day of our lives. Of course philosophers will still argue over it, heck, they argue over whether or not we can be certain that we even exist "oh noes, I could be in the matrix and can't really be certain anything is real, it could all be a simulation!" But, for my practical purposes, my answer is good enough, and that's where I'm stopping
Simply put, we can't deny that circumstances shape us, and we can't deny that we make choices every day of our lives. Of course philosophers will still argue over it, heck, they argue over whether or not we can be certain that we even exist "oh noes, I could be in the matrix and can't really be certain anything is real, it could all be a simulation!" But, for my practical purposes, my answer is good enough, and that's where I'm stopping
What? Simply saying that we're not dominoes doesn't make it so in the sense that you're trying to imply. I'm not saying that there is only one likely result, I'm saying that there might be only one possible result regardless of how likely it may seem.
I don't understand why you think some sort of ideology may have confused my thought processes. My little theory isn't based on anything at all, except the loosest interpretation of physical science imaginable. I'm certainly not religious, and I fail to see why religious scientists would be inclined to agree with me.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Simply put, all realities are probable realities, but the one in which we believe our respective identities dwell is the one we label "actual." These realities are chosen by means of conscious focus individually and collectively, while those seemingly "not chosen" continue to exist where portions of our consciousnesses have decided to focus on those as actual.
I don't think that I understand your question, because from my perspective your question assumes a dilemma that I don't believe exists (i.e. that between anticipating probabilities, and the divergent nature of reality in MWI).
It was my understanding that MWI interprets that there is no "choice" of which possibility to follow--that you are, for better or worse, thrown onto an ever-dividing infinitesimal branch without anything to say about it.
How do you get the idea of "choice" in there? (I'm confused, not debating.)
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Good point.
On the other hand we can't we predict the weather, and few would argue that the atmosphere has free will.
I would.
I don't need to be able to say "I knew you were going to make that decision," after the decision has been made. I'm just saying that the future might not require anything, either material or ethereal, to know it in order for it to be immutable. Stuff's going to happen whether anyone knows about it or not. We might have no more choice in the direction of our lives than a falling leaf has a choice in whether it will hit the surface lying below it or not. Of course we'd never know it, but if it were to be true then it would be true regardless.
I'm sort of agnostic on the subject, but I feel it's worth consideration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter