Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Wait, that's your position. ......
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
hee heeWait, that's your position. ......
You did notice that that "interpretation" (it was a direct quote) you are making even more obviously fallacy
(showing an unused capability you genuinely, actually, possess - even if you never use it)
was not mine, right? That I was quoting?
I mean, you did spot the problem - but it's your argument (granted I was quoting Baldeee, but you endorsed it and repeated it).
Especially since it is explicitly defined, repeatedly, in these threads.
Which we have assumed, remember? With no loss of relevance, since that is exactly what we observe as well.
It does. It is explicitly defined in terms of cause and effect, for starters.
You mean Baldeee and Sarkus and the rest - I did no such interpreting. I merely quoted, and pointed.
Last edited:
Well, I know that the actual original quote was by Baldeee, and that you have amended the quote quite significantly, a matter that should in itself warrant reporting for the gross dishonesty it is.
Had you read or understood what he was saying at the time he was not claiming the arguments were equivalent in anything other than form. The latter argument merely began with the already reached conclusion that in a deterministic universe there is no ability to do otherwise, i.e. not free.
Nor does it address the fact that you, and others, are guilty of subsuming conclusions into assumptions and claiming them to be nothing but assumptions, as per the illustration.
Most in the field of QM would disagree with you. Some still adhere to the notion of “hidden variables”, but most evidence seems to point to the indeterministic / probabilistic nature being inherent.
Look up “quantum indeterminacy” in wiki for an overview.
And you accept that that excludes quantum mechanics, and anything else inherently probabilistic?
We have indeed assumed it. Yet probabilistic laws are indeterministic, so are excluded.
It does not. We didn’t simply assume cause and effect, but determinism. Furthermore, probabilistic outcomes have zero cause for the specific outcome that results. There are causes for the probability function, but the specific outcome is random within the probability function. No cause, thus indeterministic.
You merely amended, then quoted, then pointed at your handiwork as if your amended quote was not your interpretation. Dishonest much?
I have and I find no conflict.
Sarkus,
Quantum Indeterminism:
Can you provide a link that confirms your position of non-causality leading to indeterminate outcomes? ( putting aside local and non-local hidden variables for the moment.)
Quantum Indeterminism:
Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics.
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
I have no problem with probability being used when precision is unavailable.Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
Quantum indeterminacy is the assertion that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties. Indeed, according to the Kochen–Specker theorem, in the quantum mechanical formalism it is impossible that, for a given quantum state, each one of these measurable properties (observables) has a determinate (sharp) value. The values of an observable will be obtained non-deterministically in accordance with a probability distribution which is uniquely determined by the system state. Note that the state is destroyed by measurement, so when we refer to a collection of values, each measured value in this collection must be obtained using a freshly prepared state.
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
Again all this is saying is that unique collection of measurable properties are not determined by the state of a system, a system that can not be fully known due to inherent imprecision.src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
Can you provide a link that confirms your position of non-causality leading to indeterminate outcomes? ( putting aside local and non-local hidden variables for the moment.)
Last edited:
There is a difference between inherent lack of knowledge or precision, and just a practical rather theoretical lack of precision. The former is what it means to be an indeterministic system, whereas the latter can be found in deterministic systems as well. But the former is mutually exclusive with a deterministic system.
Yes, the imprecision is inherent, the state is not completely determined by the previous state. If it was completely determined then everything would be able to be known about it (theoretically). This is what determinism is.
If there is inherent imprecision which means that even if we knew state A we still wouldn’t be able to completely determine subsequent state B then this is indeterminism. We can come up with probabilities to describe it, but the actual state is not able to be completely determined. Hence indeterminism.
As a starter for 10, look at the first line of wiki’s entry for intdeterminism:
“Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically.”
I.e. non-causality leads to indeterminism.
As said, most in the field would disagree with you, but some still adhere to the “hidden variables”, which is what your position would seem to be. As such QM is no longer indeterministic, nor probabilistic, and any view of it being so is due to our subjective lack of knowledge.
Most evidence, I believe, would seem to suggest otherwise, however, but you are welcome to your view. And if this is your view then QM is a red-herring in the discussion because it adds nothing, rather than being because of an understanding and trying to squeeze inherent probability into an assumed deterministic universe.
thanks for your post...
However were we not referring to Quantum indeterminacy...
How does Indeterminism relate to Quantum indeterminacy?
A tad confused... sorry...
Quantum indeterminacy is the notion that one can not measure all properties of a physical system necessary to describe it completely. This is an inherent property of the system and nothing to do with practical limitations of measurement. What it means is that if you measure what you can you are still left with an incompleteness in the description that can at best be described probabilistically. I.e. we can not determine it completely. Thus indeterministic.
No, I didn't. I quoted the exact words, and made the context perfectly clear.
It began with an assumption, labeled "P1" in one of the versions.
Nonsense.
He posted what he claimed - and you endorsed - were two versions of exactly the same argument - one argument - which he "merely" (his term: "merely") worded differently. I did not claim that - he did. His announced reason for doing that was to "dumb it down" - the original version - so that I could understand it.
I did nothing except align the different wordings of one premise and the conclusion on the page, so anybody could see what Baldeee and you and the rest regard as equivalent wordings of the disputed assumption and the disputed conclusion.
And so there it is - the key assumption and conclusion of your argument, "dumbed down" for easy comprehension, right in front of you. Notice the assumption, and the conclusion. Read them carefully, both versions. Stop denying them.
Contradiction in terms, in quantum theory: the probabilities are causal.
The measurements are not "incomplete" - all the properties that exist can be measured.
That's a completeness in the description.
It determines the outcomes just fine. It is the substrate of cause and effect, the basis of our assumed causal determinism.
The probabilities determine it, completely.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of a probability as a thing, a property.
This muddle, btw, was why I and I hoped others would not bother with quantum theory before the basic situation of human decision making had been hashed out - why I stipulated to a deterministic universe. It is irrelevant to freedom of will, irrelevant to the entire discussion: human decision making is a macroscopic, slowly progressing, physically locatable event. It's not a quantum level phenomenon. There's nothing "indeterminate" about it.
Last edited:
Yes you are quite right but missed the issue of non-causality..
ok... another thread perhaps...
Quantum indeterminacy vs Indeterminism
- Quantum Indeterminacy is a physics theory, mathematically demonstrated and proven to be sound.
- Indeterminism is a philosophical doctrine that incorrectly interprets Heisenberg's imprecision as uncertainty. When it is actually the imprecision that leads to uncertainty.
One is a philosophy the other is a physical science
So again you have cross purposed your response...
In quantum indeterminacy all events have causality.
To claim other wise is to invoke the super natural which you seem to have a love hate relationship with.
Last edited:
Agreed, and funnily enough even the quality freedom is irrelevant and unnecessarily loaded with a history that prevents it's rational usage. Hence emphasizing the term self- determination instead.
What is relevant is that the participants to this discussion have an ability to string two logical statements together with out contradiction, cross-purpose, loss of context and utter confusion...
No, that was explained in post #870
Garbage. The physical science informs the philosophy. Stop trying to squirm out of things through posting utter garbage.
All events are caused, yes, up to causing a probability function, but you can not completely determine the outcome from those causes. And thus it is not deterministic. This is the mistake you and iceaura are making.
To claim otherwise is to understand the terms being used, nothing about the supernatural at all.
is the universe's mass/energy encoded with a probability function?
Probability is simply mathematics ... you do realize this don't you?
Instead of "probability function" in what I wrote, try reading it as "an outcome governed by a probability function". I merely reduced this to "probability function", 'cos most would understand what that is referring to.