/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10898303
If its a closed system where all states are dependent upon prior state, then how the "person" changing "his/her/xir/helicopter" surrounding? Isn't the act of imagining something borne from a prior state? Or do you believe in meta-state where the lower level of causality doesn't affect it, but the meta state can affect the lower state? But then, how does the meta state work? Does it have its own causality laws that require a meta-meta state and ad infinitum? Or is the meta-state a magical place where anything and everything can happen without causes?

>>10898330
Doesn't matter what I believe in if it's borne out of smashings of particles in my brain. What you call the meta state, the lay-person calls it the soul and the soul is something that is untestable as you can only prove it to yourself which again is another act of configuration of your state.

When I say free will, I mean the "seemingly random" quantum event which would have a 50-50 probability in my brain creating a causal chain giving rise to a thought. These quantum events collectively would aptly fit the description of a meta-state as for our purposes we don't know the mechanisms of a wavefunction collapse.

>>10898352
"Seemingly random" is not causality breaking random. So as I understood your idea, its that you believe these "seemingly random" quantum events somehow gives rise to causal breaking powers to ordinary people making decisions. If people are not in control of these seemingly random quantum events, how do they enable any sort of free will?

>quantum events
>????????
>profit

>>10898303
>special relativity states that the chronological order of events are not defined and that if we are to believe that we live in a block 4D universe which is unchanging
Wrong. Read pic related.

>>10898303
Consciousness is unironically the fifth fundamental force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>10898367
Not giving people the power to choose, but instead the universe expressing it's will through people.

>>10898390
Are you suggesting relativity of simultaneity is a hoax then?

>>10898392
I'll comment about this in an hour.

>>10898396
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0A3dLXTPFHL

>>10898407
>https://vocaroo.com/i/s0A3dLXTPFHL
Wrong. You are a part of a universe and are exerting JBP's words upon me through a conscious process. You are conscious of this happening hence you have played yourself.

>>10898407
Also don't believe in this guy. For navigating the chaos of life, great guy. But he isn't educated rigourously in quantum physics and relativity which I believe are unsaid prerequisites to even begin answering the questions like that of consciousness. A consciousness cannot arise if there is no increase in entropy and the universe is always increasing in entropy.

>>10898303
>the principle of causality which includes all known physical laws determining the evolution of the system
There are undoubtedly some unknown ones that do so as well.

>when a person is say imagining something, isn't he undergoing the process of changing the state of his being
You say that as if “he” is doing so acausally. If anything, the “process of changing the state of his being” (whatever you think that means within your dualistic view of the world) has been initiated by his environment. Even if you ascribe the thoughts themselves to “him”, they are still determined by his environment and experiences (read: his environment in the past).

>thereby making a subtle but noticeable impact on his surroundings
Only through his actions after the fact. Unless you want to talk about the virtually nonexistent effect of his neurons firing on, say, the Earth's magnetic field. But that would be silly.

>This should create a causal chain of events that would have not otherwise happened
So? If any other part of his environment or experiences were different, so would his thoughts be, so would his resultant actions be, and so would the resultant unfolding of the universe (within his causal future, of course). You're basically saying that if things had been different before, they would be different after. This is obvious and means nothing.

>free will has something to do with the evolution of the universe
Everything that exists within the universe necessarily has something to do with the evolution of the universe. Regardless of whether free will exists, either it or the fact that most humans believe in it has something to do with the evolution of the universe. Once again, this means nothing.

>>10898303
>special relativity states that the chronological order of events are not defined
Are you trying to say this with enough confidence that we all just believe you with no question? What are you even talking about here? If you mean relativity, then you don't understand it. The order of events are defined perfectly well on a local level. Event A may seem to happen before Event B from one frame and the reverse in another, but that doesn't mean that the order of events aren't defined.

>we live in a block 4D universe which is unchanging
I have a feeling that there's no proof for that and that I didn't just happen to miss the greatest scientific discovery of our lifetimes. If I'm wrong, please give me a paper and the name of our newest nobel prize winner.

.>then free will doesn't exist
Not to open up a whole different can of worms, but you could have erased the entire rest of your post except for this line and you may well have made an accurate statement.

>Is there a counter argument to this?
Yeah, and it's a pretty easy one: You're making a metric fuckton of assumptions, and your hypothesis is largely useless because of it.

>This would also explain quantum entanglement
There are plenty of more plausible ideas that can do the same that we simply haven't or can't yet perform experiments to verify. What experiment could you perform to verify your hypothesis? Stop making useless if/then statements and go out and do some actual science.

>>10898352
>Doesn't matter what I believe in if it's borne out of smashings of particles in my brain.
Why not? What you believe still decides how you act, regardless of free will's existence. Humans have the idea of a belief for a reason. Free will doesn't have to exist for the idea of it to affect a human's chance of reproduction.

>the lay-person calls it the soul and the soul is something that is untestable
Then it's useless to science outside of fields that study human behavior, and even then only as a means to understand the difference in the actions of those that do and do not believe in it. Even if souls do exist, they are no more powerful than the belief in a soul would be. It follows that it doesn't at all matter if they exist or not.

>the "seemingly random" quantum event which would have a 50-50 probability in my brain
Do you have any evidence that one single quantum event can influence your brain in such a way that it could be said to have given rise to a whole thought?

>These quantum events collectively would aptly fit the description of a meta-state
In that case, the entire universe becomes a meta-state as these events happen everywhere, not just in brains. If the entire universe is in a meta-state, then isn't that just its state?

>>10898396
Will, defined as “the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action” is something that began to develop through natural selection when the first neurons, and/or their precursors, gave their "owners" a much higher chance of reproduction than other concurrent lifeforms. Animals have will because our nervous systems are designed to rapidly respond to a largely chaotic and violent world. You don't want to get eaten by the things bigger than you if you're small, and you want to eat the small, fast things if you're big, etc. The universe itself has no need that we know of to react promptly to a survival situation. It has no reason to have any kind of will, and even if you could come up with some kind of predaverse that wants our little cosmos in its belly, the whole situation would be occurring on timescales we would never observe. But there is no predaverse, and our universe has no will of its own because that's fucking stupid.

Unless, of course, you define "will" in some way that makes you feel special. Since you seem to be a dualist, this would not surprise me in the least.

>>10898303
>block 4D universe
>free will doesn't exist
>the universe already know what's gonna be measured in the future
You're such a bluepilled goy.

>>10898303
There is freewill and there is destiny, both are entwined like a choose your own story book. This is how we have limited freewill to make choices and to have goals and dreams and hold on to them. At the same time, reality is constantly generating new inputs into life that conflicts or even obsoletes your freewill choices. This is basically what religions teach you, with the logical conclusion that if you just maintain control of yourself, then all the reality around you will stop being fucked up when you die.

There are 4 quadrants of information that define our reality.
1. knowable truths
2. unknowable truths
3. knowable falsehoods
4. unknowable falsehoods

This is true for all levels of information. Everywhere from universal ones to personal ones based on the facts of your life and destiny.

bump

>>10898392
>Another new age fag who believes pop science

>>10900595
Not an argument

>>10898303
There’s no evidence of free will.