Proof of nonexistence of free will

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.

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 !!!

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 !!!

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Meaning that it does n´t matter if Truth is actual in a "potential realm" given such realm exists...

Heisenberg's "potentia" would grossly correspond to what I am calling "possibility," although only grossly: my possibility is not Heisenberg's "potentia": my possibility really exists as a possibility, rather than as an "attenuated" actuality. And there is no "potential realm": there is only one realm, which is ours: reality, and it includes what goes on inside our minds (not heads or brains, but minds).

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

or actual in our Realm...in any sense, Truth is always actual !

Our realm is reality, which is both possible and actual since, if it were not possible, then it could never be actual. Whatever you say about reality, you must never forget:

1) Actualities depend on their own possibility.
2) Possibilities can exist without yet being actualities.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

That´s the beauty of Truth...the "bloody" thing is Absolute !!!

To see the real beauty of it, by finding a really absolute truth, you must begin by accepting the reality of possibility, then follow the contradictions within that dual truth (possible/actual) all the way to its last logical consequence: all the truths you call absolute are subject to doubt, so calling them absolute is not exactly beautiful.

reality, and it includes what goes on inside our minds (not heads or brains, but minds).

But let us play your game: let us assume that possibilities do not really exist:

1. Suppose I can go for a walk in the park near my home tomorrow (or even today). Then, how can you say that possibilities do not really exist without implying that I cannot go for a walk in that park, either today or tomorrow?

2. Or suppose that it is already tomorrow, and I did went for that walk in the park. Then, how can you say that possibilities do not really exist without implying that I did not really go to my walk in the park, since it was never a real possibility?

In other words, how can you say that something is not a real possibility without making it impossible?

(As you can see, quantum physics is only bringing to the surface a long-forgotten problem.)

guigus wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Meaning that it does n´t matter if Truth is actual in a "potential realm" given such realm exists...

Heisenberg's "potentia" would grossly correspond to what I am calling "possibility," although only grossly: my possibility is not Heisenberg's "potentia": my possibility really exists as a possibility, rather than as an "attenuated" actuality. And there is no "potential realm": there is only one realm, which is ours: reality, and it includes what goes on inside our minds (not heads or brains, but minds).

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

or actual in our Realm...in any sense, Truth is always actual !

Our realm is reality, which is both possible and actual since, if it were not possible, then it could never be actual. Whatever you say about reality, you must never forget:

1) Actualities depend on their own possibility.
2) Possibilities can exist without yet being actualities.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

That´s the beauty of Truth...the "bloody" thing is Absolute !!!

To see the real beauty of it, by finding a really absolute truth, you must begin by accepting the reality of possibility, then follow the contradictions within that dual truth (possible/actual) all the way to its last logical consequence: all the truths you call absolute are subject to doubt, so calling them absolute is not exactly beautiful.

I was very specific right in the previous posts on this and did actually ask you in what measure did you think in the nature of possibility...namely if it would concern a mental exercise regarding the knowing on the object as a set of chances or the Truth of the object as a process to an outcome...

in which case only one possibility is to be true in our Universe, thus being already true even if one those not know it...

there are no false possibility´s !

You have been bouncing on this forward and back...

The "Potential Realm" was an a question not an answer, that I pose to you regarding your contradiction on this issue, which was meant to perceive in what conceivable measure you take the nature of possibility in terms of its own property´s as a concept and that you still failed to clarify thus far...

That actuality´s depend on their possibility is all to obvious even for a 4 year old kid...the question rises when you say that possibilities can exist without yet being actualities, as possible false Truths and similar nonsense...

What is possibly false is our guessing not the thing itself...
The thing either is possible or impossible !

Finally:

Quote:

reality, and it includes what goes on inside our minds (not heads or brains, but minds).

1 - What in the hell are you talking about ???

2 -There is in fact a proposition concerning parallel Universe that proposes the idea of interference between Worlds as an explanation to the superposition state...it seams obvious that you are not familiar with it, in which case you just should be silent !

guigus wrote:

But let us play your game: let us assume that possibilities do not really exist:

1. Suppose I can go for a walk in the park near my home tomorrow (or even today). Then, how can you say that possibilities do not really exist without implying that I cannot go for a walk in that park, either today or tomorrow?

2. Or suppose that it is already tomorrow, and I did went for that walk in the park. Then, how can you say that possibilities do not really exist without implying that I did not really go to my walk in the park, since it was never a real possibility?

In other words, how can you say that something is not a real possibility without making it impossible?

(As you can see, quantum physics is only bringing to the surface a long-forgotten problem.)

Very simple my friend...
One thing is my guessing on what I might or might not do, based on ideas of plausibility, like I am not paralysed therefore I can walk down the park whenever I chose to, which opens a set of possibility´s in my mind...and quite another to actually demonstrate the causal mechanical chain to support it...point in which you might want to jump to the talk on the superposition states, which as I pointed out earlier, in terms of nature might all be considered as actual Truths independently on the theory´s that supports them explaining what they meant or mean with this...

...the particle is literally everywhere in the wave in a state of superposition and not possibly everywhere...possibly concerns the problem on knowledge by probability through observation thus provoking the collapse of the superposition state !
You are making a troublesome mess on this issue !

3. A possible truth must be a possible falsehood, otherwise it ceases to be a possibility.

Neither: possibility is a stage in the process of being, and it includes possible falsehoods as well.

Sorry, but I cannot be silent, since I must say that such a theory has nothing to do with Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics (remember what you said about not putting words in the mouths of well-known physicists?).

Quote:

3. A possible truth must be a possible falsehood, otherwise it ceases to be a possibility.

Again and again and again...that concerns Knowledge, my suppositions on the matter not facts !!! The thing is either possible or impossible !!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Neither: possibility is a stage in the process of being, and it includes possible falsehoods as well.

Possible falsehoods only means Impossibility's !!!

Quote:

Sorry, but I cannot be silent, since I must say that such a theory has nothing to do with Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics (remember what you said about not putting words in the mouths of well-known physicists?).

It was pointed out to you very early in this talk, its a variation on it !!!

By whom?

Many-worlds interpretation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation every event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which cannot interact with each other.[1]

Many-worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real —each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). It is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many worlds.

The original relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett in 1957.[2][3] Later, this formulation was popularized and renamed many-worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and '70s.[1][4][5][6]

Many-worlds claims to reconcile how we can PERCEIVE - non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[7][8] and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite[9]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but didn't, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.

The decoherence approach to interpreting quantum theory has been further explored and developed[10][11][12] becoming quite popular, taken as a class overall. MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherence interpretations and the Copenhagen interpretation.

I told you so !...

Quote:

Many-worlds interpretation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation every event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which cannot interact with each other.[1]

Many-worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real —each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). It is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many worlds.

The original relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett in 1957.[2][3] Later, this formulation was popularized and renamed many-worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and '70s.[1][4][5][6]

Many-worlds claims to reconcile how we can PERCEIVE - non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[7][8] and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite[9]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but didn't, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.

The decoherence approach to interpreting quantum theory has been further explored and developed[10][11][12] becoming quite popular, taken as a class overall. MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherence interpretations and the Copenhagen interpretation.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Many-worlds claims to reconcile how we can PERCEIVE - non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics.

1 - A POSSIBLE IMPOSSIBILITY HAS NO ONTOLOGICAL PROPERTY´S , BUT RATHER EPISTEMIC FEATURES !

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU CAN´T GET ON THIS ???

Meaning you cannot attribute "existence" to a negative like a "possible impossibility" on per se !!!

The only way you can do this exercise is in epistemic terms...given when you say a possible impossibility what you are conveying is that to you, there´s the possibility of something being impossible or possible given you don´t know !
The per se you cannot do this ! Given something is either or just possible or impossible !!!

Quote:

By whom?

By me !

Thanks for the advice. It is a good thing to doubt ones belief. I think for every concept we believe we should spend as much time trying to dispute it as coming to believe in it. I am only 27 and so you have me beat in the time it takes to come to such realizations and I am one to appreciate the value of time put to thinking. I too question myself on the problems of infinity, locality and entanglement as well as the wave/particle duality and I will continue to thoroughly question any belief as a madman questioning the commands of the voices in his head.

Only when we know little do we know anything; doubt grows with knowledge.

...it is non-deterministic regarding the event it predicts, and quantum equations produce probabilities...

You are utterly unable of any understanding...since has been pointed out to you for more the a dozen times that prediction concerns Knowledge not the thing in itself...which was the whole point on Truth and actuality on first place...

As for the mentioned "interference" it not concerns an interaction between superposition's with each other but the wave function effect itself...

...given you show incapacity to grow to the explanations that are in front of everyone who is able to read I leave you at rest...it was obviously a mistake to come back to this thread since actually no one is already debating it with you on account not of your nonsense but on the arrogance of repeating it over and again...

One is not guilty of not knowing, but guilty on not wanting to know !

No further>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE