/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1765131]

[Anonymous No.1765134]

>he still believes in direct causation
schrodingerlaughing.jpg

[Anonymous No.1765139]

who cares about will when you have emotions are free

[Anonymous No.1765145]

>>1765134
>> he believes in a dichotomous relationship between free will and determinism.

GirlsLaughing.jpg

[Anonymous No.1765148]

who cares about will when your emotions are free

[Anonymous No.1765155]

>>1765134
>>1765145
>You both think a universe with free will behaves statistically different than on without it.
genericmyface.gaypeg

[Anonymous No.1765165]

>he still uses greentext.jpg.png.standing_gif.hta.virus

[Anonymous No.1765188]

Ok, I wanted to make a point here

>>>/b/272768434

/b/ is more intelligent than /sci/

[Anonymous No.1765196]

>>1765155
I think the universe will adhere to the laws of physics and chemistry in a predictable way ASSUMING that intelligent life that has free will interferes with the processes. We always have to choose how we influence the future.

Let's say you throw a ball. With the sufficient knowledge of the situation, you can predict how long the ball will be in the air. However your friend has the choice whether to run into the ball's trajectory or not. He MAY intercept the ball, or he MAY NOT. He has the free will to choose how the universe around him moves to an extent.

Of course, I don't think this argument will convince you at all. Just felt like saying that.

[Anonymous No.1765208]

The question I think is poorly stated.

What we should really be asking is: are people in control of their actions? If you answer yes to this then even in our deterministic universe free will exists.

[Anonymous No.1765216]

It's pretty fucking obvious it doesn't exist. Both the source and Leeway model is exemplary enough. What is this, high school physics?

[Anonymous No.1765217]

>>1765208
There's a difference between freedom of action, and freedom of will. You have the ability to act where upon you may, but are you the original act in supposed question?

[Anonymous No.1765230]

>>1765196
Oh, I believe in free will, it's just that it's impossible to prove or disprove because we'll never be able to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not, and therefore whether our brains are ultimately just chugging along the way that was set in motion at the big bang. The fact that I subjectively feel as if I have free will is proof enough for me.

[Anonymous No.1765233]

>>1765217

If the process that determines your will is your brain, then this shows that your will is determined by yourself - which gives you the sensation of free will. That decision making stuff? That's you. Even if it's deterministic, you make a choice at that moment. Choices are not made in the past, even if events in the past affect them.

[Anonymous No.1765236]

>>1765230

Proof of this being that even the determinists will walk away and make decisions as they always did.

[Anonymous No.1765237]

>>1765233
What are you trying to >imply?

You have not made your position clear.

[Anonymous No.1765244]

>>1765237

The deterministic process that determines your actions is subjectively experienced as making a decision.

Deterministic and free simultaneously, because it is still your brain doing the process, and you do not have foreknowledge, nor perfect knowledge of the past.

I think if we could see the future, free will would be shattered.

[Anonymous No.1765255]

>>1765244
So you're a compatibilist? A libertarian? Cool.

[Anonymous No.1765259]

>>1765230
way to troll

[Anonymous No.1765261]

>>1765244
If you could see the future, we would either be able to change it (which would be paradoxical, because then it's not longer the future), or become conscious of the fact that we are without free will (which, while not strictly paradoxical, is still somewhat of a mindfuck). My conclusion is that time travel/seeing the future will probably never become possible.

[Anonymous No.1765264]

Free will is the result of lack of information. We are not capable of observing and predicting the results of every event in the universe, so when we watch complicated input/output machines like people, we are unable to determine the source of their actions, including our own. And so we convince ourselves that free will exists, and for all practical purposes, it somewhat does.

If you were capable of knowing the properties of every single particle within a closed system, free will would no longer exist, as you could deterministically predict the series of events that would soon follow.

From the perspective of the entire universe, free will is a joke. From the perspective of uninformed humans, they have no other way to explain their own actions and the actions of others.

A person's actions are the direct result of all of the external stimuli they have experienced. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1765271]

>>1765264

Pretty much my position. That's an excellent summary.

That's why if I was a god, or an oracle, I would commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.1765294]

Objectively, free will does not exist.
Subjectively, free will does exist.

[Anonymous No.1765296]

Does anybody have the source to that mark twain essay on free will mentioned on the post on /b/? Highly interested.

[Anonymous No.1765298]

>>1765264
>capable of knowing the properties of every single particle
>knowing every property of every particle
>every property
lol Heisenburg
Every property doesn't exist (or isn't well defined) for a particle simultaneously.
This certainly doesn't prove free will, but it makes your claim invalid.

[Anonymous No.1765307]

>>1765298
You kind of forgot an important part.
>If you were

[Anonymous No.1765310]

ITT: lots of drop outs who took one semester of an into philosophy course.

[Anonymous No.1765322]

>>1765264
see that's what is so infuriating - people who think particles are the only thing in the system.

have you every took a second to think that some aspect of the universe is ultimately unknowable or do you just have hope that it is?

[Anonymous No.1765332]

>>1765322
I can't even tell what you're asking, or whether or not you agree with post you linked to.

[Anonymous No.1765347]

>>1765307
IF: you were capable of knowing the properties of every single particle within a closed system
THEN: you could deterministically predict the series of events that would soon follow.

IF: you could deterministically predict the series of events that would soon follow.
THEN: free will would no longer exist.

That's your argument. Since the universe is fundamentally built upon the fact that not all properties of any particles are well defined at any time, you are not capable of knowing the properties of every single particle within a closed system. Therefore you are unable to make a claim about being able to deterministically predict the series of events that would soon follow which means that you can give no validity to your conclusion.
Hypothetical situations that are fundamentally impossible by necessity give us no real information about reality.

[Anonymous No.1765379]

>>1765347
That's fair, and it blows a nice hole right through my rationale. A guy has to keep away the cognitive dissonance from viewing the universe as being deterministic somehow. Oh well~

[Anonymous No.1765416]

>>1765332
I dunno, but I can't agree with how you originally worded yourself.
>have you every took a second to think that some aspect of the universe is ultimately unknowable
..or do you just operate off of the hope that the universe is ultimately knowable?

[Anonymous No.1765474]

[Anonymous No.1765498]

>>1765347

>implying perfect information means knowing all properties of particles within a closed system, since those properties don't exist until measured

[Anonymous No.1765503]

The laws of physics, atoms reacting and all that shit control everything, no outcome is random. Everything is decided. EVERYTHING. You have no free will. You have no control over ANYTHING. Your pathetic.

[Anonymous No.1765501]

>>1765416
Those seem nearly synonymous to me.
>I think the universe is unknowable
>I hope the universe is unknowable
>I don't know if the universe is unknowable and neither does anybody else

So I would say... yes? I mean, I would think that, in order to model a universe for the sake of observing it in fine detail, you would need... an entire universe. Besides, I was just postulating what would happen if it currently were possible for an individual, the idea of free will would be silly. However, you can conveniently disregard the contents of the post in its entirety thanks to >>1765347

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're asking due to both your typos and my lack of sleep.

[Anonymous No.1765515]

>>1765474
>>1765474
>>1765474
>>1765474
>>1765474
Define it, fagets.

[Anonymous No.1765518]

>>1765498
>Implying one could predict the exact motion of particles without it

[Anonymous No.1765522]

>>1765515
>faggets
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.1765523]

>>1765522
>misspelled a misspelling
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.1765533]

>>1765518

>implying this is even needed
>implying there isn't a more fundamental construct to quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.1765553]

>>1765533
The whole point is that QM precludes the possibility of accurately predicting the future without the introduction of uncertainty. This doesn't mean the universe is non-deterministic; it means the universe is unpredictable. I thought I made that clear enough. You can neither prove nor disprove free will.
I happen to take the subjective "feel" of free will as evidence, but I don't insist that this evidence is absolute.

[Anonymous No.1765558]

why would you need freewill in a universe?

because as an observer you make decisions based on probable outcomes. it may seem like freewill doesnt exist, but in reality its the potential for different outcomes that makes freewill possible to exist.

[Anonymous No.1765576]

>They think we have a complete enough picture of the universe to conclude that we definitely do not have free will!

[Anonymous No.1765580]

>>1765553

i guessed you missed the whole part about "fundamental construct." we don't know why quantum mechanics works so well, until we figure that out the whole free will argument is nothing but rabid speculation

[Anonymous No.1765584]

You morons don't know jack shit. You all just took some science courses and think you know EVERYTHING. You don't even know what qualia is you fucking morons.

[Anonymous No.1765626]

>>1765584

- probably thinks we have a soul that is somehow not dependent on the past but generates random numbers.

That's even less free will than determinism.

[Anonymous No.1765640]

>>1765580
*sigh* Let me say this again... QM may be secretly deterministic under all the probabilities, but the point is that it's impossible to know. Some stochastic process that "tells" the particles where to go looks for all intents and purposes probabilistic. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been derived from experiments and existing laws; it's real, not some random guess. You can't show that the universe is deterministic, and you can show that it isn't.

[Anonymous No.1765642]

>>1765626
What are you talking about? I don't think we have a soul. I'm saying you don't even know the sides of the argument, but you make it like you have this brilliant solution. It's silly.

[Anonymous No.1765643]

>>1765626
Free will is neither deterministic nor random. If it were either it wouldn't be free.

[Anonymous No.1765635]

>>1765553
>This doesn't mean the universe is non-deterministic; it means the universe is unpredictable.
That's what non-deterministic means.

>I happen to take the subjective "feel" of free will as evidence
as do I.

[Anonymous No.1765651]

>>1765635
Determinism means that all futures will look the same.
Predictability is our ability to calculate what that future will look like before it happens.

[Anonymous No.1765658]

>>1765651
These are equivalent propositions. Determinism means that a future state is completely determined by a past state. If it is completely determined, then it is in principle predictable. (Unless you are talking about humans simply not knowing enough to predict it.)

[Anonymous No.1765685]

>>1765658
You have to think more openly. Imagine rolling a dice. No matter how many times you rewind and replay the event, it'll be the same number that comes up, but from our perspective the whole process is so complex that it's random. Deterministic, but not predictable.
For an even better argument (because technically the dice roll *could* be predictable) consider a photon in the double slit experiment. If you replayed the event, would the photon always go through the same slit? We don't know, but it's conceivable that it could. By it's nature, though, it's impossible to predict which slit the photon will go through before measuring it. Unpredictable, but possibly deterministic.

[Anonymous No.1765689]

We are decision making entities.

These decisions are based on genetics, upbringing, experience, random chance + chaos + highly nonlinear dynamics etc.

That's it. WTF is so complicated about that?

"We" have "free will" because we ARE the decision-making personality.

If you define "self" as the atoms that compose your body, then that is at the whim of external and internal forces. No "free will".

If you define "self" as this emergent consciousness, then it has free will by definition - it is THE decision-making entity.

[Anonymous No.1765690]

OK, just pointing something out:

WHETHER OR NOT QM IS DETERMINISTIC IS LARGELY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE QM EFFECTS ARE SO SMALL YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THEM TO BE DISCERNIBLE ON A MACRO SCALE IN A HUMAN BRAIN IN A TRILLION HUMAN LIFETIMES

Yes, it's possible - just highly improbable - that they'd have significant in every human brain. Which is a testable hypothesis. If they do, there's something in there, and we can empirically say free will, or souls, or something unprecedented exists. If not, human brains are deterministic for all intents and purposes.

[Anonymous No.1765708]

>>1765685
The best current theory, by far, is the Many-worlds hypothesis, in which (when you have a detector set up) the particle goes through <span class="math">both[/spoiler]. Having the detector merely decoheres the universal amplitude distribution into two separate distributions, which are, from our perspective, separate worlds. This is still deterministic, in a mind-bending sort of way.

[Anonymous No.1765706]

Yes OP, because the universe has decided that the best way for me to contribute to the development of the universe is for me to waste my summer playing Super Nintendo and posting on 4chan all day.

[Anonymous No.1765712]

>>1765708
>best current theory, by far,
You clearly don't know anything. Go back to reading Michio Kaku books you nimwit.

[Anonymous No.1765718]

>>1765708
>best theory
>made-up unscientific bullshit

[Anonymous No.1765719]

>>1765685
Rolling dice, IF it is deterministic -- if they really would turn up the same role every time -- then it is predictable in principle. I realize that it isn't predictable practically, but it's predictable in principle, which is the same thing as it being deterministic. Same with the photon.

[Anonymous No.1765735]

>>1765718
>>1765712
Really it is. The only other serious proposal is the collapse postulate, which is only serious by an accident of history. If it worked, it would be the only non-unitary phenomenon in all of QM, the only non-linear phenomenon in all of QM, the only non-local phenomenon in all of QM, the only random phenomenon in all of QM, the only FTL phenomenon in all of QM, the only phenomenon in all of QM to violate Liouville's theorem... the list goes on.

Whereas many-world falls quite naturally out of a fairly straightforward interpretation.

[Anonymous No.1765737]

>>1765708
>The best current theory, by far
(not a theory)
>is the Many-worlds hypothesis
(not a hypothesis)
>Having the detector merely decoheres the universal amplitude distribution into two separate distributions, which are, from our perspective, separate worlds.
(no decoherence in many worlds)
>This is still deterministic
Yes, the many worlds INTERPRETATION is a deterministic INTERPRETATION of underlying reality. The rub is that every-day experience is fundamentally non-deterministic under it. But there's no room for free will in that interpretation.

[Anonymous No.1765745]

>>1765735
>collapse postulate
It sounds like your physics professor likes the many worlds interpretation, and so you're under the impression that it's the "best" or only "serious" one. There are about 9 interpretations, each one as good as the other. The most commonly used among physicists is copenhagen, not many worlds.

[Anonymous No.1765756]

>>1765745
Except that, to my knowledge, all other serious interpretations which are not sub- or super-sets of Many-worlds rely on the collapse postulate. The Copenhagen interpretation sure as hell does. And yes, I know it's the most common among physicists, but as I say that's only an accident of history.

[Anonymous No.1765758]

>>1765719
No, we know with 100% ABSOLUTE certainty (well, maybe 99.999999999999...% (which reminds me of a troll I thankfully haven't seen in a while), but that's true with all science; the laws could randomly change tomorrow) that you CANNOT predict with anything resembling certainty which slit the photon will go through. It is impossible to know its momentum and position simultaneously, so even if there was a deterministic process "guiding" it, we could never see it; it would contradict the uncertainty principle. It would be like deriving a completely new equation for motion that gave us answers that contradicted the ones we have now. If such a thing happened, we'd have to abandon our belief that the universe behaves in a logical fashion. And it could be that the universe just "decides" where to put the photon when it's measured, with no rules or predictability or anything. It's not impossible, just alien to our normal view of things.

[Anonymous No.1765771]

>>1765756
They don't all involve collapse. Here's my list. The reason for the Copenhagen interpretation is not because of an accident of history, unless you mean the accident that modern science is based on logical positivism, and the Copenhagen interpretation comes closest to the naked application of what we know without assuming anything else about underlying reality. Here's my list of interpretations:

The Orthodox interpretation (Copenhagen)
Bohr’s interpretation
Mind causes collapse
Hidden variables
Many-worlds interpretation
Many-minds interpretation
Bohm’s interpretation
Decoherent histories (Ontology)
Decoherent histories (Epistemology)

as described here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9501/9501014v5.pdf

[Anonymous No.1765773]

I must admit that this is the most coherent free will/determinism thread I've seen on /sci/. It's nice.

[Anonymous No.1765781]

Is that why I'm posting this? OH WAIT

[Anonymous No.1765788]

>>1765758
No, there could be non-local hidden variables which deterministically determine where the photon will end up. This would not violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which comes about because of the wave nature of whatever is described by the Schrodinger Equation. We can interpret that wave as a probability wave, but there could be hidden variables which determine where upon the wave the photon ends up being detected. The wave is still a wave though, it doesn't have a momentum and position that can be both precise. It would just mean there is more to the system we don't know about. It's currently a subject of interpretation, so we definitely don't know this with 100% certainty.

[Anonymous No.1765811]

I impulsively said "Oh shut the fuck up" when I saw OP's picture.

Seriously you guys need to worry less about pointless hypotheticals and more about not being a faggot.

[Anonymous No.1765832]

>>1765771
The reason the Copenhagen interpretation is <span class="math">accepted[/spoiler] over Many-worlds is just because, by and large, it came first.

Also,
>the Copenhagen interpretation comes closest to the naked application of what we know without assuming anything else about underlying reality
This is laughably wrong. "The wavefunction collapses" <span class="math">is[/spoiler] an assumption about the underlying reality. An assumption which has wildly different rules from anything else in QM; see >>1765735 for a partial list.

On your list:
The Copenhagen interpretation I've discussed.

Bohr’s interpretation, as far as I know, says basically nothing about the world.

Mind causes collapse is ridiculous on the face of it, and this at least is accepted by pretty much all modern quantum physicists. Why should minds be special? This does not belong on a list of serious interpretations.

Hidden variables is not itself an interpretation, but rather a class of interpretations, including Bohm’s.

Many-worlds is the clear current winner.

Many-minds is something of a superset of many-worlds, and is too fuzzily defined to discuss at this time. It suffers from the same problem as Mind causes collapse.

Bohm’s interpretation, and indeed all hidden variable interpretations, violate locality. This is a fairly fatal flaw, given that no other physical laws violate locality. It's also not, to my knowledge, highly regarded. In any case, that it violates locality makes it considerably less likely than Many-worlds, which does not.

Decoherent histories (Ontology) is a subset of many-worlds.

Decoherent histories (Epistemology) is, again, too fuzzily defined to really talk about. And, like Bohr's, it doesn't actually say much of anything.

[Anonymous No.1765846]

>>1765832
Also, should have attached this image. It's 3 AM Friday morning and I'm arguing about quantum mechanics on the internet. Going to sleep now.

[Anonymous No.1765849]

>>1765846
Goddamn it. Image.

[Anonymous No.1765856]

>>1765849
Oh, wait, it's <span class="math">you[/spoiler].

[Anonymous No.1766017]

>>1765832
>This is laughably wrong. "The wavefunction collapses" is an assumption about the underlying reality.
That is laughable wrong. "The wavefunction collapses" says NOTHING inherently about the underlying reality, unless you add an interpretation to the wave function which implies something beyond a mathematical construct, which most physicists do NOT. Most physicists will tell you that QM physics tells you NOTHING about the underlying reality between the point where the particle is released and the point where it is measured.

[Anonymous No.1766026]

>>1765832
>Mind causes collapse is ridiculous on the face of it, and this at least is accepted by pretty much all modern quantum physicists. Why should minds be special?

Nonsense. Minds are special because they are the only things that are ultimately aware that a measurement takes place. You can place the dividing line of where decoherence takes place anywhere between the measurement and the mind. It is completely arbitrary.

>Many-worlds is the clear current winner.
LOL. You're a trip.

>Many-minds is something of a superset of many-worlds, and is too fuzzily defined to discuss at this time. It suffers from the same problem as Mind causes collapse.
In other words, you didn't read the paper, and you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.1768343]

meh

[Anonymous No.1768361]

"And should we find ourselves one morning
Alone and lost in endless sea
Our greatest asset is our mind
In every age of man we find
Capacities for distraction
Far outweigh those of memory."

[Anonymous No.1768394]

Determinism and indeterminism don't have shit to do with it.

Even in an indeterministic universe you wouldn't be able to prove free-will. To prove free-will you would have to prove that we can somehow control the chemical reactions that occur in your brain. Which is just silly.

The chemical reactions BECOME our thoughts, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.1768399]

read this, faggots

>Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). In A, the intuitive model, there is no causal component for will. Will influences conscious thought, which in turn influences unconscious neural activity to direct behavior. In B, a causal component of will is introduced: unconscious neural activity and GES. But now will loses its “freedom.” In C, the model that Cashmore advocates, will is dispensed with. Conscious thought is simply a reflection of, rather than an influence on, unconscious neural activity, which directs behavior. The dotted arrow 2 in C indicates a subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior. Credit: Anthony Cashmore.

http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

[Anonymous No.1768403]

OP is right, I bought mine for $10,99
Cheapest I could possibly get man

[Anonymous No.1768598]

>>1768403
three simple payments of $19.95

[Anonymous No.1768611]

>>1768598
Man, I wanted 2 simple payments and 1 fucking complicated payment.

[Anonymous No.1768637]

>>1768399
Whoever wrote that doesn't understand the meaning of "free" in "free will". It doesn't imply free from influence. That would be absurd. It is influenced, and causes set certain constraints, but it is ultimately self-determined within those constraints.

[Anonymous No.1768642]

>>1768611
What do you think death is?

[Anonymous No.1768651]

If free will doesn't exist
How come people can overcome addiction?