Free will, determanism and all that (choices, choice)

[PureX]

Originally Posted by roli

I agree that it is impossible for us to trace many of the wonders of scientific laws that are in effect presently,but to say the laws governing natures existence included chance is an oxymoron,it either was one or the other all chance or all creation.
Everything is governed by certain laws or principals from the cause to the eventual effect of the cause regardless of how many stages of metamorphosis it goes through

I could easily create a machine, obeying all the current laws of physics, that would generate a random result. Chance is not an oxymoron. Nor does it rule the universe. It's simply one element in a set of relationships that form the basis for what we call existence.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

I could easily create a machine, obeying all the current laws of physics, that would generate a random result. Chance is not an oxymoron. Nor does it rule the universe. It's simply one element in a set of relationships that form the basis for what we call existence.

But the randomness of the result of the machine is in its unpredictability to us.

If real randomness objectively exists, then science is a farce. Science relies on reproducable results.

[Kungfuzed]

Originally Posted by PureX

There are two ways in which I see chance playing a significant role in the way things have come to be. One is on the quantum level. The other is through free will.

The example of the dice, I believe, is being use to promote an incorrect conclusion. It's true that when viewed from the perspective of a human being, the dice will strictly follow the laws of the mechanical universe, even though we can't exactly describe every detail of the dice interacting with the hands that throw them, the air they pass through, and the table they land on. And if this were so, theoretically, if we could throw the dice the exact same way ten times in a row, they would land on the table the exact same way ten times in a row. And they might. But they also might not.

So when you say they might not land on the table the exact same way, are you saying that sometimes dice don't follow the laws of physics? Are there quantum particles acting on the dice to make them behave differently with each roll? To make the dice land in the exact same way every time we would need to do more than just control the way we throw them. Everything is in constant motion, and always changing. Even the surface of the table will change slightly due to the friction and impact of the dice. The dice will loose a few atoms with each throw. The air is always swirling and changing direction and tempurature. Having a very precise machine throw them in a vacuum would help, but even the machine will experience wear and tear with each throw. The dice can't be thrown the exact same way every time because everything is changing, but don't confuse change with chance. The dice will still strictly follow the laws of the mechanical universe with every change made.

Originally Posted by PureX

And the reason is that although the rules of the mechanical universe appear absolute when viewed from our perspective, they become less so the more we narrow the focus of our observation. At the quantum level of observation, the laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy become much less predictable. The more narrowly we focus our observations, the greater the role chance plays in the outcomes of the processes we observe.

So, you have discovered the Chance Particle? A quantum substance that makes my socks disappear and dice roll randomly and makes matter occasionally disobey the laws of physics? Is my mind being controlled by random quantum fluctuations? I better get my tin foil hat. Of course if you focus at the quantum level you will be confused, since it's something that science can barely understand at this time. Fortunately, we don't need to focus at the quantum level in order to make accurate predictions on how observable matter behaves. It's true that the more narrowly we focus our observations, the greater the number of variables we have to deal with, but that's not chance.

Originally Posted by PureX

I read about an experiment that exemplifies the effect of chance in the real world. It is surmised by the laws of a mechanical universe that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Yet it is also surmised by quantum physics that phenomena like photons don't exist in a exact place and time, but only exist as a phenomena of probability of chance. And according to the logic of probability, if chance really is effecting the phenomena of photons, then some of them must be slightly exceeding the speed of light, while some others are slightly slower. So an experiment was set up to find out if there are any photons exceeding the speed of light.

I don't recall exactly how the experiment did the filtering, as I read about this some years ago, but the end result was that when all the photons traveling at or under the speed of light were filtered out of a beam of light, some light remained. And in fact the scientists who did the experiment sent information across the remaining stream of photons to claim the prize of having been the first people to send a message faster than the speed of light.

Here's a link on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_o...nd_experiments Basically they are able to alter the speed of light by passing it through caesium atoms but no information can be sent with the faster light. The speed does change when passing through matter because of refraction. It doesn't change the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

Originally Posted by PureX

Chance plays a far more significant role in the behavior of matter and energy at the quantum level than it does at the level at which you and I function. But the universe we live in is the way it is because of the way matter and energy behaved and still behaves at the quantum level. If we were to explode two identical singularities into two universes like our own, they would not create universes identical to each other nor identical to ours, because at the quantum level, where the nature and shape of a mechanical universe is determined, chance is playing a much more significant role.

How would you know if two singularities were identical in the first place? And if they were truely identical, how do you know they wouldn't result in identical universes?

Originally Posted by PureX

The second way that chance becomes important is as "free will". The rules that govern the behavior of matter and energy have allowed them to configure themselves in such a way as to generate thought. Those thoughts can be retained and repeated long enough to compare and contrast themselves to each other and to subsequently be assembled into ideas that have given the energy forms that created them a vision of themselves and of the possibilities of their own future, and therefor, has given them choices. And it's through the idea of choice that energy forms such as human beings are able to determine (within limitations) their own destiny. Even if the fact that we could choose our own destiny was built into the creation of the universe, once we were able to choose among a number of possible future actions, predetermination was lost there.

The moment free will enters the event of existence, (and keep in mind that the universe is an event, not an object), then the nature of the universe is changed slightly by each choice made. And because these choices are not governed by the same rules that govern the matter and energy that created the choices, they can defy (transcend) such supposed predetermining limitations.

Perhaps we have different ideas on how the mind works. My background is in computers. When a computer "thinks" it is really just processing 1's and 0's to produce what we see on the screen. The programs I use dont exist independently of the transistors in the processor, memory or hard drive. The computer recieves input through it's ports, only seeing strings of 1's and 0's, and this input is used to alter the data that it already has, changing what is displayed on the screen. What you are saying, if I were to put it in computer terms, is that what is displayed on the screen is actually changing the 1's and 0's in the machine. You're saying that our ideas are controlling our brain, instead of our brain producing ideas.

I believe that thought is a physical reaction in the brain. Our brain is the computer and our mind, along with our sentience, choices, beliefs, everything that we percieve ourselves to be, is what is displayed on the screen. The mind is only the image of what the brain is producing. The brain is the cause, the mind is the effect.

Like the dice, our neurons are going to obey the laws of physics, making our thoughts and choices inevitable. But since we are unable to observe and calculate every single variable right now, you can at least have the appearance of free will.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Willamena

But the randomness of the result of the machine is in its unpredictability to us.

If real randomness objectively exists, then science is a farce. Science relies on reproducible results.

We're falling into absolutism vs. relativism, here, I think. Science makes no absolute claims. It is a relative endeavor, bearing relative results, that we can use with relative success in understanding and controlling our relationship with our environment. There is no reason that the existence of some randomness (chance) on a quantum scale would seriously effect the relative functionality of the scientific endeavor.

Think of the old marbles and pegs example. We drop 100 marbles down an inclined board with 10 pegs sticking out of the board. The marbles hit the pegs and must pass on one side or the other of them to proceed downward to the bottom of the inclined plane. The majority of marbles will hit the pegs off-center, and so will follow the path of least resistance around the peg. But a few will hit the pegs dead on, and will either come to rest there, or will fall to one side or the other of the peg by chance. And the question becomes, "is it really chance (randomness) or is it the result of some force too small for us to detect, pushing the marble to one side or another".

The answer is both and neither if the force in question is less than the forces at work in creating the functional equilibrium, which is almost always the going to be the case. And the proof for this is that no matter how many times we do ANY experiment designed to eliminate chance, we can never do so with the degree of accuracy and specificity that would be necessary to absolutely eliminate it. No matter how perfectly round we make the marble, or how perfectly round we make the peg, or how perfectly still we make the air surrounding these, there will always be a degree of error that allows the possibility of chance to have determined the way the marble falls, or, the forces of equilibrium will overwhelm the other determinant forces and the marble won't fall at all, but will simply come to rest on top of the peg.

In effect, this is proof that chance exists. As it's certainly as consistent and reproducible a proof as anything science can produce.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

We're falling into absolutism vs. relativism, here, I think. Science makes no absolute claims. It is a relative endeavor, bearing relative results, that we can use with relative success in understanding and controlling our relationship with our environment. There is no reason that the existence of some randomness (chance) on a quantum scale would seriously effect the relative functionality of the scientific endeavor.

Think of the old marbles and pegs example. We drop 100 marbles down an inclined board with 10 pegs sticking out of the board. The marbles hit the pegs and must pass on one side or the other of them to proceed downward to the bottom of the inclined plane. The majority of marbles will hit the pegs off-center, and so will follow the path of least resistance around the peg. But a few will hit the pegs dead on, and will either come to rest there, or will fall to one side or the other of the peg by chance. And the question becomes, "is it really chance (randomness) or is it the result of some force too small for us to detect, pushing the marble to one side or another".

The answer is both and neither if the force in question is less than the forces at work in creating the functional equilibrium, which is almost always the going to be the case. And the proof for this is that no matter how many times we do ANY experiment designed to eliminate chance, we can never do so with the degree of accuracy and specificity that would be necessary to absolutely eliminate it. No matter how perfectly round we make the marble, or how perfectly round we make the peg, or how perfectly still we make the air surrounding these, there will always be a degree of error that allows the possibility of chance to have determined the way the marble falls, or, the forces of equilibrium will overwhelm the other determinant forces and the marble won't fall at all, but will simply come to rest on top of the peg.

In effect, this is proof that chance exists. As it's certainly as consistent and reproducible a proof as anything science can produce.

Well, it's an interesting idea, but not one that I can believe in.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

So when you say they might not land on the table the exact same way, are you saying that sometimes dice don't follow the laws of physics?

I'd be saying that the laws of physics include a factor of randomness.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

Are there quantum particles acting on the dice to make them behave differently with each roll?

I believe there are factors at the quantum level that will cause the dice to behave differently even though they are thrown exactly the same way. These factor are very slight, when observed from our perspective, so it may take many executions of the experiment to observe the change.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

To make the dice land in the exact same way every time we would need to do more than just control the way we throw them. Everything is in constant motion, and always changing. Even the surface of the table will change slightly due to the friction and impact of the dice. The dice will loose a few atoms with each throw. The air is always swirling and changing direction and temperature. Having a very precise machine throw them in a vacuum would help, but even the machine will experience wear and tear with each throw. The dice can't be thrown the exact same way every time because everything is changing, but don't confuse change with chance. The dice will still strictly follow the laws of the mechanical universe with every change made.

I understand. This is what I was trying to point out in post #44. One of two sets of forces will prevail: either the forces that cause equilibrium will negate the forces that will break equilibrium, and the marbles will either fall randomly, or not fall at all, or some force smaller than our ability to detect will break the equilibrium, but be smaller than the margin of error, and therefor undetectable and dismissable. In either case the effect is the same, and from the experimenter's perspective, randomness is what is being observed, NOT the alternative.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

So, you have discovered the Chance Particle? A quantum substance that makes my socks disappear and dice roll randomly and makes matter occasionally disobey the laws of physics? Is my mind being controlled by random quantum fluctuations? I better get my tin foil hat. Of course if you focus at the quantum level you will be confused, since it's something that science can barely understand at this time.

And yet you seem to understand it so clearly that you are convinced that it cannot possibly involve chance. Remember that the argument from ignorance cuts both ways. None of us knows for sure what's going on at the quantum level. Therefor, I can make fun of your position just as easily as you can make fun of mine. But that's too easy and leads nowhere.

I'm only positing as best I can why I believe what I do about these things. And I'm all ears if you wish to do the same.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

Fortunately, we don't need to focus at the quantum level in order to make accurate predictions on how observable matter behaves. It's true that the more narrowly we focus our observations, the greater the number of variables we have to deal with, but that's not chance.

Well, you can't prove that it's not chance, and it does in fact appear to be chance every time and way that we investigate it, and to a seemingly infinite degree of specificity. According to the methods of science, that's as good a support for a theory as we're ever gonna get.

I'm curious why you oppose the theory.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

Here's a link on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_o...nd_experiments Basically they are able to alter the speed of light by passing it through cesium atoms but no information can be sent with the faster light. The speed does change when passing through matter because of refraction. It doesn't change the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

I searched "exceeding the speed of light" and found these:

Breaking The Light Speed Limit

No Thing Goes Faster Than Light (but is a photon a "thing"?)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on the experiment I read about, though it did cause a stir at the time, and I read it in one of those popular quantum physics books a few years ago.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

Perhaps we have different ideas on how the mind works. My background is in computers. When a computer "thinks" it is really just processing 1's and 0's to produce what we see on the screen. The programs I use dont exist independently of the transistors in the processor, memory or hard drive. The computer recieves input through it's ports, only seeing strings of 1's and 0's, and this input is used to alter the data that it already has, changing what is displayed on the screen. What you are saying, if I were to put it in computer terms, is that what is displayed on the screen is actually changing the 1's and 0's in the machine. You're saying that our ideas are controlling our brain, instead of our brain producing ideas.

The computer is not self-aware. it obviously doesn't even come close to the degree of speed and complexity of the human brain. Also, the human brain is not binary, it's intuitive. We can't replicate that mechanically, yet.

Our brains can create an idea of reality that is different from actual reality, and then we can choose to act according to that idea (rather than according to actuality). As a result, we purposely alter reality to make it conform to our idea of it. That's free will at work, changing (distorting) the course of reality itself.

Also, the way we idealize reality creates expectations that in turn effect the way we perceive it, which in turn effect the way we idealize it again. This built-in distortion is itself a reflection of the transcendence of the gestalt phenomena.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

I believe that thought is a physical reaction in the brain. Our brain is the computer and our mind, along with our sentience, choices, beliefs, everything that we perceive ourselves to be, is what is displayed on the screen. The mind is only the image of what the brain is producing. The brain is the cause, the mind is the effect.

Then why aren't computers self-aware? Why don't they have imaginations? Why don't they become frightened or fall in love?

I think you're seriously underestimating the human mind by ignoring the gestalt phenomenon involved.

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

Like the dice, our neurons are going to obey the laws of physics, making our thoughts and choices inevitable. But since we are unable to observe and calculate every single variable right now, you can at least have the appearance of free will.

I disagree.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Victor

First and foremost, what in the world does "corse" mean?

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. If the word had appeared just once in the post, I'd have assumed it to be a typo. I guess you and I just need to work on building our vocabularies.