CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego

by Terry 159 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is NOT an observer effect. That way of understanding was disproved over 75 years ago.

  (Sometimes it's still taught the old way in other science classes by non-QM professors, but it's misinformation.)

  Is it possible that what you are calling the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is, in fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation?

  i.e.

  The Copenhagen interpretation was a composite statement about what could and could not be legitimately stated in common language to complement the statements and predictions that could be made in the language of instrument readings and mathematical operations. In other words, it attempted to answer the question, "What do these amazing experimental results really mean?" The insight that quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality but that measurement plays an ineradicable role is probably the most telling characteristic of the Copenhagen interpretation.
• 

  Razziel

  Only humans require a concept such as CERTAINTY--not an observed or unobserved system. A system is what it is.

  Math has uncertainty. It's called probability. Humans go looking for certainty, yes. They want a definite answer. But often times when they follow the math down the rabbit hole, the answers are probabilities. The math shows that definitive certain answers to some questions are not possible in this universe.

  QM is very hard to grasp for logical people. I'm a logical person, and you are too, Terry. There were several occasions I was just completely stumped in truly understanding a concept because I was looking for a classical analog to compare the concept to. Sometimes (most times) there are none. Many of the predictions pointed to by the math do not make any logical sense whatsoever. But these predictions are being backed up by experiment and being used in modern technology.

  The point is, if you try to understand QM by using the logic of things we see and experience on an everyday basis, you are doomed to fail. The logic leads to predictions and understanding that are contrary to the way QM works.
• 

  Razziel

  Read the last sentence of the definition you posted, Terry. That's basically what you are arguing for.

  What I'm saying is that last sentence is a consequence of the uncertainty principle, it is not the uncertainty principle itself.
• 

  notverylikely

  Or if we saved the entire state of the universe, restored to a previous point, would quantum events happen exactly the way they did before. This is the key to determining if the universe is truly a deterministic machine.

  Since there is no way to test that and for all practical ond observable purposes it IS random, we might as well call it that.

  I have no hypothesis! Look at my Topic heading: CHOICE may be a mere illusion. The "may be" suggests a discussion is in order.

  In that case I think we have proven that it is not a mere illusion. It is subtle and nuanced, but not an illusion.

  What if my statement about a cancer cell was not that statement at all---but, rather a response to something else by way of making an entirely counter point? In such a case might I not have preceded the statement by including the quote I'm responding to?

  Terry: Look at my last sentence. Is that a question or a rhetorical question?

  Rhetorical question or not, it was the wrong one to be asking. What was the point you were trying to make with that?

  Because, while genetically predisposed, we are learning minds with the ability to adapt our contexts. This adds a new layer to our predisposition.

  What makes humanity a singularity in nature is the recursive nature of our thought-framing and contextualizing of our genetic predispositions.

  The boulder that sits atop the mountain cannot learn nor can the smoke in a campfire nor the ocean when the moon is nigh.

  So, we may have pre-dispositions (I prefer vanilla bean flavor, always have, regardless of any concious decision on my part) but sometimes I can decide to each chocolate instead? So there IS such a thing as a free will? You said human nature is what it is, but a singularity is where the known laws of nature break down and are undefined.

  Of course, dolphins and dogs can also learn from experience.

  I'm confused. You say free will may be an illusion on the one hand, but on the other that we can change our pre-dispositions.
• 

  Terry

  Math has uncertainty. It's called probability.

  I think that is stretching things semantically to make a point!

  For one word to be the equivalent of another you should easily be able to swap them in usual contexts without harm to the sense of it.

  Probability, as far as I recall, requires a periodicity and repetition of events. Uncertainty refers to a determination of outcome which is not predictible.

  Tossing a coin has predictibility because the outcome has a limit (heads OR tails) and the ratio of outcomes can be quantified to a certainty.

  Uncertainty has no certainty. (duh).

  You know all that, of course.

  I'm not a math person, professor, statistician or physicist but---I've read just enough about those subjects to make me dangerous. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing :)

  The tendency in technical professions is to push boundries and the language gets warped along with the boundry pushing.

  I'm a WORD person.

  I jealously guard contexts, definitions and applications inside my widdle head or else my bullshit detector goes off.

  Language is a very poor substitute for math in describing quantum effects. In fact, deceptive to the point of obfuscation.

  Unless we can talk in symbols (which we cannot) this discussion (as far as physics is concerned) is doomed.

  Summary of probabilities

  Event	Probability
  A
  not A
  A or B
  A and B
  A given B
• 

  Terry

  I have no hypothesis! Look at my Topic heading: CHOICE may be a mere illusion. The "may be" suggests a discussion is in order.

  In that case I think we have proven that it is not a mere illusion. It is subtle and nuanced, but not an illusion.

  I must have blinked at the point where you established your Q.E.D.

  Would you repeat that demonstration for me?
• 

  notverylikely

  Probability, as far as I recall, requires a periodicity and repetition of events. Uncertainty refers to a determination of outcome which is not predictible.

  Tossing a coin has predictibility because the outcome has a limit (heads OR tails) and the ratio of outcomes can be quantified to a certainty.

  Uncertainty has no certainty. (duh).

  I think the problem is that you don't understand probability and uncertainty in math and science. Uncertainty doesn't mean "we have no idea what the outcome will be". It's related to probablity in that there are a range of outcomes depending on conditions and we are UNCERTAIN which one it will be until some action is taken to observe it.

  I must have blinked at the point where you established your Q.E.D.

  Would you repeat that demonstration for me?

  I didn't. You did. You said the human mind was adaptive and a singularity in nature. Since natural things have no choice but the follow the laws of nature, if the human mind is a singularity (generally defined in physics as a point in space time where the laws of physics as we know them break down, an undefined area, so to speak), our minds do not necessarily follow the laws of nature.

  You did know what a singularity was, right? Or were you using some other definition that doesn't involve, math, randomness and physics?

  I jealously guard contexts, definitions and applications inside my widdle head or else my bullshit detector goes off.

  I call BS on that since you seem to freely change the definition of things whenever it suits you (the definition of free will, subjective, objective, probability and uncertainty just to name a few). If nothing else, te nosce.

  Language is a very poor substitute for math in describing quantum effects. In fact, deceptive to the point of obfuscation.

  Unless we can talk in symbols (which we cannot) this discussion (as far as physics is concerned) is doomed.

  Only if you don't know what the terms mean or try to re-define them to mean something you understand. Again, you brought math and randomness into this. Now you want to back out of the discussion claiming language is the issue when in fact it's not.
• 

  JWoods

  Has it occurred to anyone else that if Terry is right, then the God of the Garden of Eden is Evil?

  (Adam would have had no free choice but to eat the fruit)
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  When Eve said 'eat it' Adam had no choice - he was married and feared her more than God!
• 

  JWoods

  When Eve said 'eat it' Adam had no choice - he was married and feared her more than God.!

  LOL - but remember: The WTS actually believes just that - Eve was fooled by Satan, but Adam was not.