Free will?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't think anyone claiming that we have free will, osho, claims that we have absolute free will under all circumstances. The question might be better put, "Do we have any free will?" If the world is deterministic then we don't.

Perhaps the question is even better put as, "Do we have enough free will?" Then the next question would be, "Enough for what?" An initial answer to that might be, "Enough to relate responsibly to each other, the universe and whatever else there is to relate to."

I look at the quantum argument as just setting up the necessary grounds for free will. If the world is deterministic at the quantum level, then there is no need to discuss free will further. It turns out that is not the case. So the necessary conditions for free will are present. Once we establish that, we can ask what the sufficient conditions are for free will. That would lead us into discussions about consciousness which might be generally defined as that which can make a choice.

---

Firstly, we don't know a UNI-VERSE. That's what I call the verse of the UNI. Infinity + x = infinity. And if we were to reach a place where we cannot go beyond, there is always an undetermined behind.

So, the universe is already too much for us to handle and we know diddly-squat about it, except that we are talking about infinity without being knowledgeable. So this is the key to understanding that the only freewill we could have must be in the choices we can make about things we know about and can be demonstrated in the lab as facts. But they are given and we can only choose among those which are given a-priori. Our freewill is a choice among multiple choices. If we try to induce from postulated multiple choices, we close all possibilities of more and we commit inductive fraud upon our conclusions.

So we are ultimately deductive animals and our freewill is limited by the choices we are able to see and the need (forcefully) to make choices ruled by circunstances pertaining to our environment. We must act. That we know. In acting we choose what we can in accordance with what we are permitted to see with a moment's religiosity. And we pray to God that we are making the best choices. But ultimately we know diddly-squat about the matter. And it is precisely that inability to see beyond that makes us religious whether we like it or not.

Hey, if some of the freaks around make a movie out of this, please call it C A Cafolini. Or maybe Warren Buffet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Do waves start acting like particles when you look at them? No.

---

Yes! That is exactly what they do -- according to Copenhagen! Maybe you should view the video again. This is called the measurement problem -- maybe you should Google that. This is also what is called wave function collapse, according to Copenhagen. According to Copenhagen, prior to measurement, the electron is a wave of probability, not a "thing" at all. It is only upon measurement that the wave function "collapses" to a point particle. This is your interpretation that you favor -- if you favor it, maybe you ought to learn what it actually says!

MW avoids all this mystic mumbo jumbo by simply postulating, in accordance with the actual math (which does not model any wave function collapse) that the wave is all that there is, and it never collapses. When an experiment is conducted, different versions of the experimenters get quantum entangled with different outcomes, so it seems as if there is wave function collapse and a single world, but there is not.

btw, YesNo, if you wish to maintain that waves do not start acting like particles when you look at them, then this means you agree with the Many Worlds interpretation.

Cioran sounds like hard salami and cheese. Why didn't you choose Dong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I guess the alternative would be to magically split into trillions of spooky alternate universes without any explanation how or why that miracle happens.

---

No. I know the term "split" is used even by MW advocates, but as was already explained to you in a paper by the physcist Max Tegmark to which I linked, this is a misconception. If you wish to discuss this subject, I suggest you make at least a pretense at learning about it.

Quote:

---

How do you really know there is no non-determinism with Many Worlds? I know that is the Many Worlds dogma, and you are welcome to your metaphysics, but does it deliver?

---

First, Many Worlds is not a "dogma." As has been repeatedly explained to you, it is a meta-theory (theory about a theory) or an interpretation of the ontology of QM which is perfectly consistent with all QM predictions, and, unlike Copenhagen, does not have to add extra assumptions, like wave-function collapse, which is not in the math. The reason that is is determinsitic is because it is modeled by the Schroedinger wave equation, which is deterministic. This was also explained to you. Do you ever read the information that is given to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I guess the alternative would be to magically split into trillions of spooky alternate universes without any explanation how or why that miracle happens.

---

If you want to make an honest effort at understanding, as opposed to spouting dogma, go here and read the short section called "The Everett Postulate," which is about half a page in length. Of course I already linked this paper to you, didn't I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Yes! That is exactly what they do -- according to Copenhagen! Maybe you should view the video again. This is called the measurement problem -- maybe you should Google that. This is also what is called wave function collapse, according to Copenhagen. According to Copenhagen, prior to measurement, the electron is a wave of probability, not a "thing" at all. It is only upon measurement that the wave function "collapses" to a point particle. This is your interpretation that you favor -- if you favor it, maybe you ought to learn what it actually says!

MW avoids all this mystic mumbo jumbo by simply postulating, in accordance with the actual math (which does not model any wave function collapse) that the wave is all that there is, and it never collapses. When an experiment is conducted, different versions of the experimenters get quantum entangled with different outcomes, so it seems as if there is wave function collapse and a single world, but there is not.

---

Waves are a mathematical representation of pulses that have nothing to do with particles. So, how could you look at that representation and see particles? Of course not. You only see particles when you look at particles. Get the 220 Dong out of the Danish. Then you can eat the Danish without getting mentally electrocuted. ROFLMAO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Waves are a mathematical representation of pulses that have nothing to do with particles. So, how could you look at that representation and see particles? Of course not. You only see particles when you look at particles. Get the 220 Dong out of the Danish. Then you can eat the Danish without getting mentally electrocuted. ROFLMAO?

---

You said there were no such thing as electron waves. I have shown you that there electron waves. So you are making a fool of yourself.

Do you have any idea where QM came from in the first place? Have you ever heard of the blackbody problem or the ultraviolent catastrophe?

LOL

You are too foolish to bother with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

So we are ultimately deductive animals and our freewill is limited by the choices we are able to see and the need (forcefully) to make choices ruled by circunstances pertaining to our environment. We must act. That we know. In acting we choose what we can in accordance with what we are permitted to see with a moment's religiosity. And we pray to God that we are making the best choices. But ultimately we know diddly-squat about the matter. And it is precisely that inability to see beyond that makes us religious whether we like it or not.

---

I don't think we have much more free choice than that. It is quite limited. However, I assume it is adequate, but I don't know how to show that it actually is or is not adequate. I also wonder to what extent we can increase our ability to be free in any way.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have one theory that says that we can bring things into and out of being simply by looking at them, and another that says for any action by anything, from the subatomic to a whale to a natural phenomenon like an earthquake, an entire universe is spontaneously created for every other possibility. And both sides think the other's theory is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Yes! That is exactly what they do -- according to Copenhagen! Maybe you should view the video again. This is called the measurement problem -- maybe you should Google that. This is also what is called wave function collapse, according to Copenhagen. According to Copenhagen, prior to measurement, the electron is a wave of probability, not a "thing" at all. It is only upon measurement that the wave function "collapses" to a point particle. This is your interpretation that you favor -- if you favor it, maybe you ought to learn what it actually says!

MW avoids all this mystic mumbo jumbo by simply postulating, in accordance with the actual math (which does not model any wave function collapse) that the wave is all that there is, and it never collapses. When an experiment is conducted, different versions of the experimenters get quantum entangled with different outcomes, so it seems as if there is wave function collapse and a single world, but there is not.

---

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

You claimed that the electron is a wave, and they do display a wave-like pattern on a detection screen in a double slit experiment. However, when photons strike the electrons allowing you to observe them prior to hitting the screen, the wave-like pattern on the detection screen changes to a particle-pattern.

Is that how a real wave behaves? Try it. Push water through the double slit experiment. It gives the expected wave-like interference pattern on the detection screen displayed as height of the wave. That is how a wave behaves. Now look at the water as it goes through the double slit. Does the wave pattern on the detection screen change to a particle pattern? No. It does not behave the way the flow of electrons behave.

The words "wave" or "particle" are at best metaphors for what an electron really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

First, Many Worlds is not a "dogma." As has been repeatedly explained to you, it is a meta-theory (theory about a theory) or an interpretation of the ontology of QM which is perfectly consistent with all QM predictions, and, unlike Copenhagen, does not have to add extra assumptions, like wave-function collapse, which is not in the math. The reason that is is determinsitic is because it is modeled by the Schroedinger wave equation, which is deterministic. This was also explained to you. Do you ever read the information that is given to you?

---

I don't worship mathematics. It is at best a tool. Change the axioms and you get different results. I think that was discovered in the 19th century when Euclid's parallel postulate was modified. Soon there were different geometries. The fact that mathematics could come up with logically consistent alternate geometries to Euclid's meant that what was logically proven now had to be tested by experiment before it could be accepted as real.

To use the terms of the Tegmark paper that you repeatedly cite, any mathematics formed under his "Platonic paradigm" must be tested by physical evidence before it can be trusted to be physically real whether Tegmark likes it or not. The Platonic paradigm is useless. It was rejected over 150 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have one theory that says that we can bring things into and out of being simply by looking at them, and another that says for any action by anything, from the subatomic to a whale to a natural phenomenon like an earthquake, an entire universe is spontaneously created for every other possibility. And both sides think the other's theory is silly.

---

Precisely. And analogously to how Henry Ford put it, if you think it's silly, it is, and if you think it is not silly, it is not. Looks like we are also bird watching without Audobon. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have one theory that says that we can bring things into and out of being simply by looking at them, and another that says for any action by anything, from the subatomic to a whale to a natural phenomenon like an earthquake, an entire universe is spontaneously created for every other possibility. And both sides think the other's theory is silly.

---

No, that is not it.

The Copenhagen Interpretation says that the wave ceases to be a wave when it is measured.

The Many Worlds Interpretation says that the wave continues to exist when it is measured, and that just one of many possibilities was measured.

Nothing was created from nothing, and there are no additional universes created unless that is necessary.

Nothing was created from nothing? More nothing than nothing? From nothing? LOL