Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: free will

Expand Messages
  • kensharp81
    Well now, that was quite a mouthful. I think, to even begin engaging such a topic we would need to come to a consensus definition of the concept, free will .
    Message 1 of 59 , Aug 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Well now, that was quite a mouthful. I think, to even begin engaging
      such a topic we would need to come to a consensus definition of the
      concept, "free will". Agree?


      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
      <iamthewayandthetruth111@...> wrote:
      >
      > This topic is strange to me. It never made sense to me at all,
      > never, ever, ever. Yet almost everyone seems to believe in it and
      > believe it is fairly simple. I've done searches for explanations
      of
      > free will, searched hard and long, and found nothing, empty
      > arguments. And I just can't shake it out of my head because I
      can't
      > tell if I'm insane or if there is still a crazy, wacked out theory
      > that people are buying without thinking about it. So anyways this
      is
      > a discussion where I will either strive to understand why people
      > believe free will (and maybe even notice it is true although I
      can't
      > conceive how yet, it is possible of course) or where others will
      tell
      > me that they also don't believe in free will and that would be
      > interesting because I haven't really discussed that with anyone who
      > agrees with me (but I have met people who agree with me but they
      just
      > give me the nod). So this is to discuss and possibly debate the
      > validity of free will.
      >
      > Now I'll just give a bit of background on my views.
      >
      > I'm not a determinist...I'm a quantum determinist which to put in
      > simple terms means I basically believe that certain events have
      > certain probabilities (and I also think the many worlds theory is
      > quite logical, unsupported by evidence but logical). To me it
      seems
      > everyone thinks that if determinism dies free will is valid, or at
      > least most do. Then they go on to say that quantum
      physics/mechanics
      > makes determinism obsolete, but still I think quantum determinism
      is
      > logical. Anyways so then they say free will is true what is the
      big
      > debate? When I talk about free will, I'm not talking about find
      the
      > most loose definition of free will and flex it a bit and say, see
      > free will is true. I'm talking about the free will that we all
      > intuitively understand as just complete control, responsibility,
      > moral responsibility, that stuff. So just for simplification say I
      > have a 50% chance of eating ice cream and a 50% chance of eating a
      > donut. I'm still confined to quantum determinism and I don't
      really
      > call this free will I would call this random will personally. Yes
      > there are some definitions of free will where randomness may
      qualify
      > but we all know that it isn't REALLY what most of us think of free
      > will to be. I have a 50% chance of making choice A or choice B but
      I
      > can't have an effect on what the outcome is...hence why it is
      > random.
      >
      > Any discussion, criticism, or alternative free will theories
      > invited. Am I crazy or is free will crazy? Or maybe that is a
      false
      > dilemna maybe we are both crazy, but now I'm getting off topic and
      I
      > can't use the word "crazy" in logic, crazy has no objective
      reference
      > point that everyone can agree on.
      >
    • bestonnet_00
      ... I m doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don t really know that much more now, however
      Message 59 of 59 , Aug 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
        <iamthewayandthetruth111@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
        > > numbers.
        > >
        > I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
        > of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
        > I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
        > pre-cal (11th grade).

        I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
        back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
        more now, however many lectures later).

        > I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopic
        > world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.

        Compared to classical theory pretty much not at all.

        > If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennis
        > ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
        > was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
        > long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
        > location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
        > curious.

        If the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
        trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
        mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
        than your lifetime before you notice any difference.

        Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
        though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
        it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
        well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
        trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).

        > > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.
        > >
        > No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
        > principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
        > the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).

        I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
        mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).

        > > It seems to be more like rambling.
        > >
        > I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
        > maybe I could come to an understanding.

        The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
        I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
        can't figure out what you're saying.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.