Free will?

[YesNo]

"If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is true." I think that it is more likely that science will show that Heisenberg was mistaken, but only time will tell. Please don't take that to mean that I think that there is an infinite god; i have douts about uncertainty, but I also wonder how much of it leaks into the macro world.

Because quantum mechanics and general relativity don't seem to work together these theories are likely to change.

And there is no reason why the wave function would not collapse in that while it would in other situations., As with so many things, it is a matter of what one is looking for. - To a man with a hammer... To apparatus for looking at waves...

I agree with this. The Many Worlds just needs to answer some basic questions which I see it avoiding from the literature I looked at in the thread on this topic.

Many Worlds is similar to Young Earth Creationism with regards to science. Both claim to be scientific, but they are both constructing ways to justify their particular metaphysics in opposition to scientific evidence. Many Worlds has an atheistic and deterministic metaphysics and the Creationists believe in the literal account in Genesis. Both claim that the experimental results that conflict with their positions are illusions and both give rather bizarre explanations for why we come up with this observational evidence. Because they treat evidence and experience as an illusion they undermine the scientific method itself.

Maybe they will be shown right in the future, but at the moment they are not scientific.

I don't disagree, but one must start with observations.

Observations help us refute conjectures, but we are all biased by our metaphysics or even by what we want to see become true. That is why blind experiments are popular.

That is your preference. I would also prefer that there be free will, but the more I look at itthe less free will I see.

I am actually more interested in the macro world than the quantum level. I agree with you that there appears to be little free will at the macro level. This is why I quoted Sam Harris in an earlier post in this thread who claims we have no free will regardless of quantum uncertainty because of studies showing that we are not aware of our choices until after the brain can be seen to change. Dennett disagreed with him, but at the macro level we are talking about consciousness which opens up a more interesting discussion.

[PeterL]

Because quantum mechanics and general relativity don't seem to work together these theories are likely to change.

Yes, very likely to change. I have doubts about both. I used to like Relativity, but there may be simpler explanations.

I agree with this. The Many Worlds just needs to answer some basic questions which I see it avoiding from the literature I looked at in the thread on this topic.

Many Worlds is similar to Young Earth Creationism with regards to science. Both claim to be scientific, but they are both constructing ways to justify their particular metaphysics in opposition to scientific evidence. Many Worlds has an atheistic and deterministic metaphysics and the Creationists believe in the literal account in Genesis. Both claim that the experimental results that conflict with their positions are illusions and both give rather bizarre explanations for why we come up with this observational evidence. Because they treat evidence and experience as an illusion they undermine the scientific method itself.

Maybe they will be shown right in the future, but at the moment they are not scientific.

Unfortunately, not many good scientists have tried working with Many Worlds. As far as I know, the math is valid, and it seems to agree with the physical universe as far as one can see. Philosophically, I find MW preferable to Copenhagen, but I didn't become a physicist.

Observations help us refute conjectures, but we are all biased by our metaphysics or even by what we want to see become true. That is why blind experiments are popular.

Yes, that is why MW is not popular among physicists.

I am actually more interested in the macro world than the quantum level. I agree with you that there appears to be little free will at the macro level. This is why I quoted Sam Harris in an earlier post in this thread who claims we have no free will regardless of quantum uncertainty because of studies showing that we are not aware of our choices until after the brain can be seen to change. Dennett disagreed with him, but at the macro level we are talking about consciousness which opens up a more interesting discussion.

Yes, those studies do appear to make it clear that human decisions are not free. Newtonian physics appear to make it clear that the macro level is predetermined, regardless of what I prefer.

[YesNo]

Unfortunately, not many good scientists have tried working with Many Worlds. As far as I know, the math is valid, and it seems to agree with the physical universe as far as one can see. Philosophically, I find MW preferable to Copenhagen, but I didn't become a physicist.

One doesn't need to know much about the math except that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be mathematically derived from Schrodinger's wave function. It is not rocket science. The math invalidates the determinism of Many Worlds.

Regarding actually seeing things, have you ever seen an alternate universe? Have you ever experienced alternate universes in any way? At least people who believe in God have religious and mystical experiences or near-death and out-of-body experiences to back their beliefs.

Many Worlds is a speculative workaround to the non-determinism in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Conveniently, we can't see these alternate universes, but they are (1) allegedly individually deterministic, and yet (2) when they somehow, and from what I read no one really knows how, work together they are able to generate the non-deterministic wave behavior in the double slit experiment. Many Worlds illustrates the magic of pseudo-science. It is metaphysics trying to drive science.

Yes, those studies do appear to make it clear that human decisions are not free. Newtonian physics appear to make it clear that the macro level is predetermined, regardless of what I prefer.

The experiments showing signals of awareness in the person after the brain changes are detected provide more evidence about the workings of consciousness than they do about whether we have free will or not. Since we think we made the choice and the brain behavior occurred prior to our being physically aware that we made the choice, our consciousness goes beyond this awareness. This could also be viewed as evidence that the brain does not generate consciousness.

[PeterL]

One doesn't need to know much about the math except that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be mathematically derived from Schrodinger's wave function. It is not rocket science. The math invalidates the determinism of Many Worlds.

I was my understanding that the Copenhagen insists that the wave function collapesalthough that is not part of the math. I will confess that I have not looked at this in detail in several years, so I can't point to the exact part involved. Everett proposed that the wave function need not collapse and that the math did not support that position. The people in Copenhagen, Bohr et Al., did not agree. I'll look at it again, but I believe that Everett's position is better supposrted by the math.

Regarding actually seeing things, have you ever seen an alternate universe? Have you ever experienced alternate universes in any way? At least people who believe in God have religious and mystical experiences or near-death and out-of-body experiences to back their beliefs.

I don't know whether I have seen examples of the many worlds.

Many Worlds is a speculative workaround to the non-determinism in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Conveniently, we can't see these alternate universes, but they are (1) allegedly individually deterministic, and yet (2) when they somehow, and from what I read no one really knows how, work together they are able to generate the non-deterministic wave behavior in the double slit experiment. Many Worlds illustrates the magic of pseudo-science. It is metaphysics trying to drive science.

As I mentioned above, Many Worlds is based on the math.

The experiments showing signals of awareness in the person after the brain changes are detected provide more evidence about the workings of consciousness than they do about whether we have free will or not. Since we think we made the choice and the brain behavior occurred prior to our being physically aware that we made the choice, our consciousness goes beyond this awareness. This could also be viewed as evidence that the brain does not generate consciousness.

Maybe

[deryk]

Deconstructing choice is masturbation. Making a meaningful decision on the other hand...

[Cioran]

One doesn't need to know much about the math except that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be mathematically derived from Schrodinger's wave function. It is not rocket science. The math invalidates the determinism of Many Worlds.

I realize you won't change your ways, and replying to you as such is futile. But persistent displays of willful ignorance and dishonesty demand persistent refutations. Have you read the scholarly articles on MW to which I have linked? Yes or no? If you have read and understood them, then you would realize that what you say above, yet again, is a load of tosh. That you keep repeating this plain falsehood in the face of so many corrections from me and others suggest to me that you don't care what's true. You only care about saying what you desire to be true.


Here, read the following, from here. I'll even put the key part in bold.

Einstein and Schrödinger did not like the fundamental randomness implied by quantum mechanics. They wanted to restore determinism to physics. Indeed Schrödinger's wave equation predicts a perfectly deterministic time evolution of the wave function. Randomness enters only when a measurement is made and the wave function "collapses."

See? The wave equation of which you speak, without knowing anything about it, is fully deterministic. Randomness enters only when a measurement is made and the wave function "collapses."

How many posts, now, have I and others explained to you the simple fact that the Many Worlds is no wave-function-collapse meta-theory, or interpretation, of QM. If one does away with the wave function collapse, QM is wholly deterministic. The no-collapse postulate of QM yields the same results as the collapse postualates, so at the current time neither one can be ruled in or out as a true ontology of QM. But, of course, if you accept wave function collapse, you must accept:

1. That the human mind magically collapses it without any explanatory physical mechanism to explain how this pure miracle occurs;

2. That a mind-independent reality fails to exist; and

3. That there can be spooky action at a distance.

All of these problems go away under MW.

Now, please, stop mischaracterizing the MW. By now it is apparent that everything you have said about it is flat wrong.

[cafolini]

The BS will be circular and never-ending for those who don't realize that math is a language for physics instead of physics being a language for math. The latter is the counterfeit. You can look at math and counterfeit physics to fit the equations, or you can look at physics and use math for genuine notation. Have fun.

[Cioran]

Here's a recent article from MIT on the Many Worlds.

Amazing! Steven Hawking accepts Many Worlds, and so does Max Tegmark, a prominent physicist whose work I have linked. So does the quantum computational expert David Deutsch, whose work I have also linked. So does a plurality and perhaps a majority of physcists who work in quantum mechanics.

This is not, by the way, an illicit appeal to authority, which takes the fallacious form "x is right just because y says it is." My point is this: YesNo, with no training in math or physics, states over and over that QM rules out MW! Wow, YesNo, you better go communicate this astounding discovery to Stephen Hawking et al! I wonder how you "discovered" something that all these prominent physicists overlooked? It's true conundrum, I tells ya!

[cafolini]

Here's a recent article from MIT on the Many Worlds.

Amazing! Steven Hawking accepts Many Worlds, and so does Max Tegmark, a prominent physicist whose work I have linked. So does the quantum computational expert David Deutsch, whose work I have also linked. So does a plurality and perhaps a majority of physcists who work in quantum mechanics.

This is not, by the way, an illicit appeal to authority, which takes the fallacious form "x is right just because y says it is." My point is this: YesNo, with no training in math or physics, states over and over that QM rules out MW! Wow, YesNo, you better go communicate this astounding discovery to Stephen Hawking et al! I wonder how you "discovered" something that all these prominent physicists overlooked? It's true conundrum, I tells ya!

YesNo interpretations do not bother me, although he could have been sold quite a bit of unfounded ways of expressing ideas. But you carry 16.38 kilograms of Smirnoff in every post. And so do your prominent fellows.
YesNo is a skeptic. You are kind of a walking septic.

[Cioran]

YesNo interpretations do not bother me, although he could have been sold quite a bit of unfounded ways of expressing ideas. But you carry 16.38 kilograms of Smirnoff in every post. And so do your prominent fellows.
YesNo is a skeptic. You are kind of a walking septic.

Sorry, this is not the issue at all. YesNo is NOT a "skeptic." What he is saying is simply wrong. He is confused. And so are you, it would appear.

He is saying that MW is inconsistent with QM, and since QM is true, MW is false. This is just, again, wrong.

The issue is not whether MW is true or not. That's irrelevant. The issue is that he is mischarcterizing the relation between MW (a proposed interpretation of QM) and QM.

Yes, MW, is inconsistent with the indeterminacy, the non-localism and the anti-realism of the standard Copenhagen interpretation. But that's not because MW is inconsistent with QM. It's because the MW interpretation is inconsistent with the Copenhagen interpreation! If you accept Copenhagen, you accept the postulate of the wave-function collapse upon measurement, and with it you must also accept anti-localism, indeterminacy and anti-realism.

The Many Worlds interpretation simply shows that indeterminism in QM holds IF AND ONLY IF the Copenhagen interpreation is correct. If the Many Worlds interpretation is correct, then QM is a fully deterministic theory.

The problem is that YesNo keeps saying that MW is false because QM is indeterministic. This is called circular reasoning, or begging the question. His statement makes sense only if in fact the wave function collapse postulate is correct, but that is precisely what is at issue! If wave function collapse is correct, then QM is indeterministic. But if it is not correct, and MW is true, then QM is deterministic, not indeterministic.

[PeterL]

Yes, MW, is inconsistent with the indeterminacy, the non-localism and the anti-realism of the standard Copenhagen interpretation. But that's not because MW is inconsistent with QM. It's because the MW interpretation is inconsistent with the Copenhagen interpreation! If you accept Copenhagen, you accept the postulate of the wave-function collapse upon measurement, and with it you must also accept anti-localism, indeterminacy and anti-realism.

The Many Worlds interpretation simply shows that indeterminism in QM holds IF AND ONLY IF the Copenhagen interpreation is correct. If the Many Worlds interpretation is correct, then QM is a fully deterministic theory.

That is the issue, an it has been the issue since Everett developed the Many Worlds Interpretation. As I understand it, the Copenhagen School retained it interpretation because they wanted it to be right, and Bohr didn't like MW, not because there was any mathematical reason for rejecting MW.

[Cioran]

Maybe this analogy will help YesNo see the mistake is his continuously making on this issue, now carried here from another thread. (Or it won’t, if he is simply being disingenuous) The following, of course, was a real historical debate.

We observe dawn, and then the movement of the sun across the sky, and then later dusk. At one time there were two conceptual frameworks that accounted for this observed and undeniable phenomenon, as well as other phenomenon such as the apparent movement of the stars:

1. The sun revolves around the earth. (Ptolemaic system)

2. The earth turns on its axis and revolves around the sun. (Copernican system)

These are completely different interpretations of the observed phenomenon. Yet both adequately explained what was observed. It was only later, when more information could be gathered, that one could decide which was correct. But obviously, only one could be correct and not both.

Likewise, today, we have a theory, QM, and we have two conceptual frameworks that represent it. One framework, Many Worlds, is deterministic. The other framework, Copenhagen, is indeterministic. Yet, just as in the case with the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems, QM works perfectly well regardless of which conceptual framework we adopt. Both MW and Copenhagen adequately explain what we observe in QM.

The issue isn’t whether YesNo thinks MW is false. He is entitled to his opinion and his skepticism. The issue is this: When YesNo asserts that “Many Worlds if false because QM is indeterministic,” he is saying something equivalent to: “The Copernican system is false, because the sun revolves around the earth.” Or, more simply: “The Copernican system is incompatible with the Ptolemaic system, and is therefore is false.”

Is the error here not obvious? If one were to make this claim, one would be assuming the truth of the very proposition that is in dispute: One would be assuming the truth of the Ptolemaic system. Of course, IF the Ptolemaic system were true, then obviously the Copernican system would be false. But whether or not the Ptolemaic system was true, was (at one time) precisely the point in dispute. And whether QM is indeterministic or deterministic today, is precisely the point in dispute. It is indeterministic if Copenhagen is true, and deterministic if Many Worlds is true. Since we do not have enough information to know which interpretation is correct, we simply do not know whether QM is a deterministic or an indeterministic theory.

If I were to mimic YesNo’s approach, I would simply declare that Copenhagen is false because MW shows that QM is deterministic!

[YesNo]

If I were to mimic YesNo’s approach, I would simply declare that Copenhagen is false because MW shows that QM is deterministic!

I think the implied assumption here is that the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many World interpretation are on the same level. Pick one or pick the other. I don't think they are on the same level just because people call both of them "interpretations".

I see the Copenhagen interpretation more as a description of experimental results without trying to add on top of that any particular metaphysics. I see the Many Worlds interpretation as a deterministic metaphysics trying to come up with some explanation for the experimental results that would keep it alive.

Let me give an example. Suppose you see presents under the Christmas tree and you interpret your experience as:

Someone put presents under the Christmas tree.

That would be an interpretation in line with the Copenhagen interpretation.

However, others who believe in Santa Claus, who have a metaphysics that there is some guy with reindeer who deliver presents to every home on Christmas eve, would interpret the result of there being presents under the tree as:

Santa came down the chimney and put the presents under the Christmas tree.

That is how I view the Many Worlds interpretation. It is the Santa Claus interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[cafolini]

I think the implied assumption here is that the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many World interpretation are on the same level. Pick one or pick the other. I don't think they are on the same level just because people call both of them "interpretations".

I see the Copenhagen interpretation more as a description of experimental results without trying to add on top of that any particular metaphysics. I see the Many Worlds interpretation as a deterministic metaphysics trying to come up with some explanation for the experimental results that would keep it alive.

Let me give an example. Suppose you see presents under the Christmas tree and you interpret your experience as:

Someone put presents under the Christmas tree.

That would be an interpretation in line with the Copenhagen interpretation.

However, others who believe in Santa Claus, who have a metaphysics that there is some guy with reindeer who deliver presents to every home on Christmas eve, would interpret the result of there being presents under the tree as:

Santa came down the chimney and put the presents under the Christmas tree.

That is how I view the Many Worlds interpretation. It is the Santa Claus interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I think you make good points here. 16.38 Smirnoff can't grasp it?

[PeterL]

I think the implied assumption here is that the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many World interpretation are on the same level. Pick one or pick the other. I don't think they are on the same level just because people call both of them "interpretations".

I see the Copenhagen interpretation more as a description of experimental results without trying to add on top of that any particular metaphysics. I see the Many Worlds interpretation as a deterministic metaphysics trying to come up with some explanation for the experimental results that would keep it alive.

The Copenhagen interpretation assumes that the wave function collapses, because Bohr wanted free will. Everett didn't present the Many Worlds Interpretation because he wanted determinism; it was because there is npthing in the math that requires that the wave function collapse. If one examines both, then one will find equally valis math, and both agree with observable reality, unless you demand that yous see all possible worlds at all times.

Let me give an example. Suppose you see presents under the Christmas tree and you interpret your experience as:

Someone put presents under the Christmas tree.

That would be an interpretation in line with the Copenhagen interpretation.

However, others who believe in Santa Claus, who have a metaphysics that there is some guy with reindeer who deliver presents to every home on Christmas eve, would interpret the result of there being presents under the tree as:

Santa came down the chimney and put the presents under the Christmas tree.

That is how I view the Many Worlds interpretation. It is the Santa Claus interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This is not a good analogy. The Copenhagen Interpretation would say that Daddy put the presents there. The Many Worlds Interpretation would say that the presents are there, and there are many people who might have put them there: Mommy, Daddy, Aunt Sue, etc. and we don't know who is guilty, because they were all there and had presents.

If MW is the Santa Claus interpretation, then DI is the warm bed with teddy bear solution.