[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 52 KB, 588x540, Michio-Kaku.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8306533 No.8306533 [Reply] [Original]

Okay so, I really fucked up that last thread, I wrote it wrong because I was trying to cook something and write it in between cooking.

So, I have a beef with Michio Kaku. He says that because there's quantum uncertainty, that this somehow proves that human beings have free will. First of all, what does he know about how consciousness works? It seems silly to me to think that somehow because there's this theory of uncertainty that that means human beings are responsible for their actions. How does he know that human beings are responsible for their actions, does he even know how consciousness is formed? If you move your hand, do you move your hand because you specifically made that decision, or does your brain make decisions and you just think you're making those decisions?

(1/2)

>> No.8306534

The next part of the problem I have with Michio Kaku, besides the fact that he made this video only 1:30 minutes long and he somehow tries to play it off like he's explaining away one of the biggest questions in philosophy, but he doesn't elaborate on the points that he's made very much and there's so much unanswered. I personally think it's bullshit, what he's saying about uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Because the universe still operates according to newtons laws, if they didn't then clocks wouldn't work. The universe is obviously working as though it was one big deterministic clock that was set from the beginning of time, I don't see how this quantum mechanics stuff solves that problem, and he utterly failed to even explain why he's making the case that he is.

(2/2)

Honestly, I think what Kaku just did basically was promote pseudo scientific thinking. He basically said "because I say this that means it's true" with no inkling of thought to even give anyone to contemplate. So yeah, sorry that I had to re-write this whole thing, but the first thread that I wrote was disastrous and I realized on re-reading it that I wasn't even saying what I wanted to be saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I

>> No.8306537

>Michio Kaku
not a real scientist

>because there's quantum uncertainty, that this somehow proves that human beings have free will
he's wrong

now fuck off

>> No.8306548

>>8306537
My curiosity is not satisfied.

>> No.8306552

>>8306548
>dumb pseudo-scientist says dumb pseudo-scientific things
Where's the surprise?

>> No.8306561

>>8306552
Well first of all, I'm just so incredulous that what's he's saying is true. I mean, I'm open to the possibility of it, but just how poorly he presented the issue in this video, and how bad the evidence he gave seems, it makes me wonder how a person of such scientific knowledge who even understands things like string theory would go ahead and make a pseudo scientific claim. I was almost hoping that some expert would come in and say "no, you're wrong, and here's why yadda yadda yadda yadda science yadda yadda yadda" whatever. But no, I just. fuck.

>> No.8306562

>Michio Kaku
He's a faggot. You can safely ignore everything he says.

>because there's quantum uncertainty, that this somehow proves that human beings have free will
There IS quantum uncertainty. It does not prove that human beings have free will.

>the universe still operates according to newtons laws
Except it doesn't. It operates according to general relativity and quantum mechanics.

>clocks wouldn't work
Clocks indeed don't work in the way you think (measuring some kind of universal time). They measure time within your inertial frame.

>The universe is obviously working as though it was one big deterministic clock
Time is not universal. Time is relative.

>I don't see how this quantum mechanics stuff solves that problem
It doesn't solve it. But it does do away with determinism, since quantum randomness is true randomness.

>> No.8306566

>>8306561
>a person of such scientific knowledge
ahahahaha

>who even understands things like string theory
AHAHAHAHAHA

if you are serious, go read a book

if you are trolling, 10/10

>> No.8306572

>>8306562
Okay, thank you. That does make more sense than what I said.

>> No.8306573

>>8306534
>Because the universe still operates according to newtons laws
No it doesn't. The classical physics is just an approximation

>> No.8306581

>>8306573
You're right, I was dumb for saying that. I'm a pseud, I even talked about the relativity of time before, and now I'm even contradicting myself by saying the universe works on newtons laws. I only said that though, because I was thinking about how reliable those laws are. Of course there's going to be variations in time and gravity. I guess I just can't get out of that way of thinking and somehow understand how things could somehow just happen for no reason, which is what this uncertainty thing is making it sound like. If anything I think if all the particles in the universe were just moving randomly, I don't see how that would make us any more free, but instead we'd still have no free will but just be victims of chaos, which we sort of already are so I don't see how it even makes a difference.

>> No.8306588

>>8306534
Well, he is commenting on a problem which is essentially within the historical domain of philosophy of mind, and arguments formulated within that domain generally are 'unscientific.' Originally, more well-formulated arguments of this sort would take determinism as a given EXCEPT for the fact that quantum uncertainty breaks the mechanical relationship between preceding neural action and antecedent behavior. It is a position originally devised as a way out for scientific incompatibalists, who had painted themselves into a corner in their minds by 'proving' that thought was mechanical, i.e deterministic, i.e. there is no free will.

Ironically, I think this argument is actually one against free will, and hard incompatibilists have since adopted it to try and make that point. If quantum swerve determines your actions, not the chain of decisions that took place to get you to when that swerve happened, we *really* don't have any control over our actions, uncoupled from material determinism as they are.

>> No.8306590

>>8306533
It seemed like he was taking care of how he was using his words. He specifically said "a kind of free will". The only thing he was really talking about was the fact that the universe isn't deterministic. The people who made the video are trying to mend what he was actually saying but if you actually sit down and listen to what he's saying, he's not saying very much at all. He's just saying the universe isn't deterministic.

For the retards who will strawman me later on, I'm not defending anything Kaku has said that was actually stupid.

>> No.8306593

Listen to the 'Stuff You Should Know' podcast episode on Chaos Theory, it was released last month. It'll answer a lot of shit for you, OP

>> No.8306597

>>8306534
Guy's a small time celebrity not a physicist, that's why he's talking about shit that has no place in physics. IDK why anybody would give a shit about what this guy is saying in his stupid little videos about light sabers and free will.

>> No.8306608

>>8306581
>which is what this uncertainty thing is making it sound like
That's exactly what happens. Outcomes of measurements are random.

>I don't see how that would make us any more free
What do you define as "us"? Obviously physics doesn't talk about any souls, but if you define "you" to be all the particles in your body, then "your" decisions, i.e. the results of measurements of electrical impulses by your neurons is random. "Your" decisions were not affected by anything else in the universe - so you have free will.

>> No.8306610

I can't even wrap my head around how the universe couldn't be deterministic, it just doesn't make sense to me to try to imagine a universe where things just happen and there's no laws to govern what they do. There's no way to frame that logically, at least not from what I can see. I'll listen to that podcast that one person in this thread linked.

>> No.8306615

>>8306610
The universe IS sort-of deterministic

Let's just say that it behaves deterministic 99.9% of the time and there's 0.01% chance involved

>> No.8306622

>>8306608
Well, basically it comes down to an extremely simple question, which is do we control our brains or do our brains control us? I don't think we do control our brains, and I don't see how we're anything more than a sophisticated computer which has somehow become self aware. I think if anything someone would have to understand the science behind consciousness happens. I don't like talking about consciousness in scientific terms, because obviously it's something that's unique to an individual and annoyingly it's something that religions have adopted because when you talk about consciousness, you're only talking about something indescribably which can only be understood subjectively by human beings. It's still fascinating stuff though, I watched a video about it by sam harris last night called "waking up with sam harris". I think it's fascinating the ideas that he draws from buddhism and how how correlates it the best he can with science.

>> No.8306627

>>8306622
>sam harris
Stop it with the pop scientists already.

The following are shit and you should avoid them:
- Sam Harris
- Michio Kaku
- Bill Nye
- Richard Dawkins

>> No.8306630

>>8306615
That's interesting but doesn't make much sense. If there's even the tiniest bit of chance involved then that would immediately spread it's effect over the entire universe, because one bit of randomness would then make everything random, because it would invariably have an effect on whatever else is around it, unless it was like ripples in a pond or something, but then there would be a bunch of ripples everywhere so it would be infinitely chaotic. It still doesn't make sense.

>> No.8306633

>>8306562
Non educated here,is there quantum uncertainty or can we just not detect it?

At what point do things start acting on a quantum level? Ie take a grain of sand and keep splitting it when will it suddenly act differently?

Third one i thought this morning,could nurologistsfind it hard to explain the brains methods due to nurons being small enough to start acting uncertain thus messing up readings?

Sorry if retarded, only just starting to look into science reasons rather than someones video just saying this is how it is, have started with physics basics from a guy on youtube called thenew boston, where after that?

>> No.8306634

>>8306627
Who should I look to for scientific information?

>> No.8306637

>>8306627
Why? And does the scientific community generally agree with this?

>> No.8306639

>>8306630
Nah, you are just fucking stupid.

Let's say you have a software program that makes 99% of the decisions deterministically, but 1% of the decisions are made truly randomly (i.e.: there are two outcomes, and both have the same probability of happening). Is the software entirely random and has no laws and shit? No.

>> No.8306641

>>8306634
Lawrence Krauss

>> No.8306643

>>8306633
quantum uncertainty and quantum randomness are different things

one is about the impossibility to measure both velocity and position of a small enough particle (uncertainity)

the other is about processes that are truly random (i.e.: all the outcomes have the same possibility of happening and there's no way to predict which one is gonna come through)

there's no point, it's gradual, the smaller, the more noticeable the quantum effect is, but even you are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, you have your own wave of probabilities, it's just your massive size makes it so that the possibilities are basically 0

>> No.8306644

>>8306639
Well, a computer is one thing, but when you're talking about the tiniest bits of chance in how they interact with literally everything, not just silicone, I think that it becomes a bit more complex. Take the paradox of sending someone back in time, but then throwing themselves into another dimension and throw off the world just by making the tiniest little chance. That's the train of thought that I've been on, you seem to have something different in mind which to me doesn't seem very rational.

>> No.8306645

>>8306644
That's because you have no idea what things are truly random.

Quantum randomness barely has any effect on say, chemistry.

>> No.8306646

>>8306644
>tiniest little chance
change*

>> No.8306647

>>8306566
He does have a PhD. and was always best in physics when he was on school.

What exactly do You know about string theory? and books like String theory for dummies and PopSci videos on youtube don't count...

>> No.8306648

Michio Kaku was a scientist.

> was

Now he's the prime example of a crackpot. Don't waste your time discussing him.

>> No.8306651

>>8306647
Lubos Motl was my flatmate

>> No.8306656

>>8306622
>I think if anything someone would have to understand the science behind consciousness happens
I, personally, don't think that will ever happen >muh hard problem
but we'll just have to wait and see.
Anyway, I was just pointing out that with a reasonable enough definition of free will, you could show that it exists.

>> No.8306657

>>8306643
Right so uncertainty is they cant see the direction or speed?

And randomness is the everything that can happen will hapen thing if enough time passes?

>> No.8306658

My answer to everything is artificial intelligence. Once we have artificial intelligence a billion times smarter than your average human, then it will tell us the answer to these problems.

>> No.8306662

>>8306657
It's not that we can't. It can't be done because uncertainty inherent property of waves. When you measure position, you destroy the momentum. When you measure the momentum, you destroy the position.

No. It just means that some quantum processes have equal probability of happening and there's no way to predict it. The macroscopic effects are mostly negligible.

>> No.8306671

>>8306662
Is that based on momentum being measured as one object so cancels out the momentum because it has to be the same before and after? I thinks thats what it was saying

>> No.8306672

>>8306643
>all the outcomes have the same possibility of happening
Completely false. The outcomes follow a probability distribution given by the (square of the absolute value of the) wave function. And you can calculate these probabilities.

>> No.8306674

>>8306672
that's not random, that's probabilistic

some quantum effects are truly random (i.e.: all the outcomes have the same probability)

>> No.8306689

>>8306674
Things can be random without having a uniform probability distribution.

>some quantum effects are truly random (i.e.: all the outcomes have the same probability)
Sure, if the coefficients are exactly right, but how is this qualitatively different from the case with a non-uniform probability distribution.

>> No.8306858

>>8306633
>At what point do things start acting on a quantum level?
Everything acts "on a quantum level." It's just that the fine-grained details become blurred at even the microscopic levels.

One way of thinking about this:
Assume that quantum mechanics describes the true nature of the universe. The path integral formalism tells us that there are smooth trajectories [math]\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}[/math] which describe the possible paths a state can evolve through with the same endpoints, say [math]x_n(t_a) = a[/math] and [math]x_n(t_b) = b[/math] [math]\ \forall n \in \mathbb{N}[/math]. The amplitudes associated with these paths have phase [math]e^{i S_n/\hbar}[/math], where [eqn]S_n := \int_{t_a}^{t_b} dt \, L(\dot{x}_n, x_n, t)[/eqn] is the classical action of the path. Consider the particular path [math]\bar{x}(t)[/math] which minimizes its action, [math]\bar{S}[/math]. This particular path has no overwhelming importance as long as [math]\hbar/\bar{S} \in O(1)[/math] (with respect to the size of the physical system, number of particles in consideration,etc.), and thus the probability amplitude [eqn]K := \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} c_n e^{i S_n/\hbar}[/eqn] requires us to sum over all paths to obtain "accurate" answers.

On the other hand, if we look in the classical limit as [math]\hbar/\bar{S} \to 0[/math] (recall that [math]\bar{S}[/math] is the minimal action), then we have that variations [math]\delta\bar{x}(t)[/math] in the path cause no first-order changes in the variation of the action, [math]\delta\bar{S}[/math]. The large sizes of [math]S_n/\hbar[/math] for the other paths result in destructive interference between the phases of [math]x_n(t)[/math] and [math](x + \delta x)(t)[/math]. Thus we are left only with [math]\bar{x}(t)[/math] and obtain the classical Lagrange mechanics in the large-scale approximation.

>> No.8306916

>>8306597
>Guy's a small time celebrity not a physicist
Are you retarded? Kaku built an atom-smasher in his garage when he was only in highschool that got the attention of Edward teller, who then became his mentor.

>> No.8307002

Yackety yack
Michio QUACK.

How many times does the Quantum Mind theory have to be debunked?
(By the way, Kaku didn't even come up with it, Penrose did)

Quantum effects are on the order of e-20 seconds, neurons are at 10-3. Basically you can treat quantum fluctuations as constant at the neuronal level.

QED he's a faggot.

>> No.8307721

>>8306656
>Anyway, I was just pointing out that with a reasonable enough definition of free will, you could show that it exists.
Religions do this with souls, gods and afterlives.
You concede those things exist too?

>> No.8307727

>>8306658
Let's hope they find problems that are a billion times harder than ours.