Proof of nonexistence of free will

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I am not having any difficulty my friend I am merely correcting the words you put in the mouth of well know Physicists...go Wiki and check it yourself !
Because I did the reading long time ago...and it was n´t in Wiki.

You said all interpretations are non Deterministic which is utterly FALSE !
I just point some...prove me wrong ! and I will goggle it for you if you are to lazy to do it yourself...

Please do not confuse my interpretation of quantum physics (which I took the care of marking as mine above) with some well-known physicist interpretation -- and it is my interpretation that you are having a hard time to grasp. As for what I attribute to well-known physicists, if you did your reading properly, you will just confirm. And I suggest you read that book (Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality"), or some other authoritative book on the subject, because the Internet can give you as much garbage as it can give you gold: you cannot rely on it as your only source of information. Wikis and Google are not yet replacements for a good old book.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I am not having any difficulty my friend I am merely correcting the words you put in the mouth of well know Physicists...go Wiki and check it yourself !
Because I did the reading long time ago...and it was n´t in Wiki.

You said all interpretations are non Deterministic which is utterly FALSE !
I just point some...prove me wrong ! and I will goggle it for you if you are to lazy to do it yourself...

You have to be able to distinguish the difference from non deterministic Reality to non determinable Reality ! One concerns an Ontological problem, while the other refers to an Epistemic one...

I guess you have allot to read in front of you even if to check an infinitesimal part of them...but you won´t need to stretch to far to realise your were actually mistaken !

Non-deterministic is the opposite of deterministic, which comes from determinism, according to which any event has a cause in a previous event. In that light, no matter how you interpret quantum physics, the mathematical formalism itself is non-deterministic, since the outcome of any particular measurement has an irreducible uncertainty forever untraceable back to a previous event as its cause.

As for your distinction between "deterministic" and "determinable," something being non-determinable is just the consequence, in practice, of its being non-deterministic, in nature. Which remembers me the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Nothing personal: that's just a well-known principle (not physicist) among software engineers.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Wikis and Google are not yet replacements for a good old book.

Agreed...

I was not referring to the "Garbage" but to well know Theory´s around...
Some, very well respected ones, as you said are non Deterministic, but not all of them...and many don´t go either way...they just point out that we cannot know ! Simple !

I can respect your view and even take it in consideration if you take a bit more care in the way you convene your ideas...because honestly, half way through, it turns into a word salad...

2 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

You have to be able to distinguish the difference from non deterministic Reality to non determinable Reality ! One concerns an Ontological problem, while the other refers to an Epistemic one...

Did you care to read what I just said above underlined ???
That is an Epistemic problem...whether you know or not does n´t mean what in fact is or not is...
Some theory´s lay rest at the epistemic problem...which show´s wisdom on who though them through...meaning they state that we cannot determine (Know) or trace the particles position or speed, but not going so far that to state they they don´t have a "real" location...independently of our inability to check. Others do just the opposite and state that the location itself is not certain...(whatever that means)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Wikis and Google are not yet replacements for a good old book.
Agreed...

I was not referring to the "Garbage" but to well know Theory´s around...
Some, very well respected ones, as you said are non Deterministic, but not all of them...and many don´t go either way...they just point out that we cannot know ! Simple !

I can respect your view and even take it in consideration if you take a bit more care in the way you convene your ideas...because honestly, half way through, it turns into a word salad...

Perhaps the salad is not in my words...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Perhaps...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
You have to be able to distinguish the difference from non deterministic Reality to non determinable Reality ! One concerns an Ontological problem, while the other refers to an Epistemic one...

Did you care to read what I just said above underlined ???
That is an Epistemic problem...whether you know or not does n´t mean what in fact is or not is...
Some theory´s lay rest at the epistemic problem...which show´s wisdom on who though them through...

You can take non-determinable to mean "non-determinable for now, perhaps determinable in the future," or else "non-determinable in the circumstances." However, this is not the meaning "non-determinable" has in quantum physics. There, non-determinable means "what cannot be determined, ever, in any circumstances." And why? Because it has a non-deterministic nature.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Oh no !!! That is not Scientific in any sense at all, that´s a leap of faith..a bridge to far...you have to go step by step...check the authors, they avoid it in any possible way..and you know why ? because they are wise...what they say is that is not worth to go further given its clear we cannot know anyway...that´s why what comes after, is said to be an hypothetical explanation that falls under the Realm of Philosophers...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Oh no !!! That is not Scientific in any sense at all, that´s a leap of faith..a bridge to far...you have to go step by step...check the authors, they avoid it in any possible way..and you know why ? because they are wise...what they say is that is not worth to go further given its clear we cannot know anyway...that´s why what comes after, is said to be an hypothetical explanation that falls under the Realm of Philosophers...

Pay attention: I am talking about the mathematical formalism and the reality that it implies. Sure you must be careful about asserting quantum physics is the final truth. However, according to quantum physics, reality has no choice other than being non-deterministic. Whether quantum physics is wrong or not, this is another matter. The point is quantum physics is the best we have, and it has never failed yet. Which is a very useful and solid foundation for philosophers.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Attention to what ???
In what sense those that turns around the assertion you just did ???
That does n´t change an inch to the problem !!!
Quantum Physics is a to vast Realm...and does n´t go just were you did try to go...that is the fact !

Several times in this Thread it was pointed out to you that the problem of Truth is distinct from the problem of knowing...you sidestep it and now you say you did n´t assert anything ? Joking right ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

This is all in fact very interesting an exciting (quantum physics interpretation). However, it is very hard to overcome certain old habits. One is that I already referred to: reality = actuality. It is very hard for people, no matter how sophisticated and highly educated, to think of possibilities as both real and non-actual. However, this is, in my view, not only the key to understanding quantum physics, but also the logical unfolding of the concepts of possibility and actuality themselves:

guigus wrote:

1. Possibility, whatever it is, must be different from actuality, since there are possibilities that are not yet actualities and may never be -- non-actual possibilities.

2. Actuality must be possible, since an impossible actuality cannot exist -- even when a possibility becomes actual, its actuality must itself remain possible.

So possibility must exist within actuality while remaining different from it: possibility does not "fuse" with actuality, since it can exist without it, and it does not "vanish," since actuality depends on it. But above all, since possibility can exist without actuality, while actuality cannot exist without possibility, possibility precedes actuality.

1 Reply

@guigus,

But you have to think further on what might mean "real as non actual"...
In what sense real then ? Is just words...do you defend the idea of another "Realm" ? Say, "The Potential World" ?
How could this world be ? How could we describe it ? What property´s would it be about ?
Is it Mathematics ? Is it pure form ? What ?...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Attention to what ???
In what sense those that turns around the assertion you just did ???
That does n´t change an inch to the problem !!!
Quantum Physics is a to vast Realm...and does n´t go just were you did try to went...that is the fact !

Several times in this Thread it was pointed out to you that the problem of Truth is distinct from the problem of knowing...you sidestep it and now you say you did n´t assert anything ? Joking right ?

Attention to that I am talking about quantum physics, not about the theory that will come after it (if that happens), and I am saying that it is a non-deterministic theory, no matter how vast a non-deterministic realm it is. If you want a deterministic theory, then you will have to come up with something different from quantum physics, for quantum physics deals with probabilities and is statistical in nature. That's all I am saying. It is not that complicated, after all.

1 Reply

@guigus,

How about Many Worlds pointing out just the opposite ?
Also notice that such is merely a proposition... they accept the "tree"can fall both ways, as potentially each possibility (Deterministic or non Deterministic) being on the money !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

But you have to think further on what might mean "real as non actual"...
In what sense real then ? Is just words...do you defend the idea of another "Realm" ? Say, "The Potential World" ?
How could this world be ? How could we describe it ? What property´s would it be about ?
Is it Mathematics ? Is it pure form ? What ?...

It is curious you talk about "potential world," because Heisenberg referred to unobserved attributes as existing in an attenuated state called "potentia" until made fully real by the act of observation. What you must notice in Heisenberg's view is that we are compelled to use the word "fully" to qualify the reality of things upon observation, which implies that when they were "potentia" they were already real in some way. That is precisely the way I hold possibility is real, despite for me it is in no way an "attenuated" state of reality: it is a full reality, just a different one. Just think about it as the actuality of possibilities themselves, as opposed to the actuality of whatever those possibilities make possible.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Fine !
Then you have to check half the pages you spoken of when you referred what is Truth...given "Potentia" if real is already actually true even if not as it should sort to speak...careful with Philosophy when it comes to speaking of Truth ! (it does n´t care much on what "Realm" Truth is or "lives"...)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

How about Many Worlds pointing out just the opposite ?
Also notice that such is merely a proposition... they accept the "tree"can fall both ways, as potentially each possibility (Deterministic or non Deterministic) being on the money !

The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics is also non-deterministic, despite being so in a very strange way: there is no determination by a previous event. Rather, all events always happen, and each possibility that is realized requires a new world in which to realize itself, hence "originates" that new world. All events happen in some world. It is just the combination of all possible outcomes materializing itself in an infinite number of worlds: there is no causality -- just the explosion of all possible outcomes -- hence no determinism.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Fine !
Then you have to check half the pages you spoken of when you referred what is Truth...given "Potentia" if real is already actually true even if not as it should sort to speak...careful with Philosophy when it comes to speaking of Truth ! (it does n´t care much on what "Realm" Truth is or "lives"...)

Could you please rewrite or explain it better? Sorry, this last one I am not being able to grasp.

1 Reply

@guigus,

There are several propositions on Many Worlds, not just one, when it comes to determinism or not there´s a possibility that supports that all States exist simultaneously in superposition only because there are several worlds interfering with each other thus the wave function "effect" being perfectly deterministic in nature even if not knowable due to the said interference...you would still have classical mechanics.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Meaning that it does n´t matter if Truth is actual in a "potential realm" given such realm exists...or actual in our Realm...in any sense, Truth is always actual !
That´s the beauty of Truth...the "bloody" thing is Absolute !!!

3 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know