Originally Posted by Ezeth
In order for someone to predict the exact decisions of a human being with 100% precision you would have to know about every particle in the entire universe, because your brain alone isn't the only thing that will affect your judgement, everything you touch, look at and feel will be added to your personal experiences, and everything you touch, look at and feel will already be affected by other things already (the butterfly effect)
This is insufficient. See Laplace's demon for details on this issue.
Thus, assuming that we live in the universe (reasonable), that the universe is accurately described by quantum mechanics (reasonable), that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic (reasonable), then human actions (as a result, eventually, of quantum interactions) are also non-deterministic (at least partially).
Assuming non-determinism means free will, then free will exists. However, this is the most crucial part of the argument: does the universe's slight non-deterministic tendencies actually imply that humans have choice?
Certainly pure determinism makes at least calls the meaning of free will, if not its entire existence, into serious question; but non-determinism isn't a free reign on the "free will exists and everything is wonderful" dogma either.
As a simple counter example: Assume, for example, that the universe is non-deterministic. Assume that this is because some "Absolute Observer" is watching the universe, waiting for choices to be made. Whenever a choice is eventually required, this "Absolute Observer" assigns one possible choice heads, the opposite choice tails, and then flips a coin. Whatever the result of the coin is then proceeds to happen. In this way, you have a perfectly non-deterministic universe in which humans have no agency, and thus (in most definitions of the term) have no free will. By the devil's proof, there is no amount of evidence that could be gathered within the universe to disprove this possibility, however slim it may be. As such, arguments that wish to avoid making unnecessary assumptions should avoid assuming that this "Absolute Observer" doesn't exist.
Determinism guarantees a lack of free will (in one sense), but non-determinism does not guarantee its presence. Thus, since quantum mechanics currently disproves the deterministic case (and that's relatively cut and dry, so if you wish to argue it, bring your physics citations), the discussion is more on "Is there any possible test by which free will could be proven real or illusory?" This would require determining what free will is first though, without using the term "determinism" or "non-determinism".
Squad Squad Squad lead?
The standardization of Toribash Squad roles may have gone too far!
The standardization of Toribash Squad roles may have gone too far!
you always have a choice, and i alwayways assume you always pick the choice you can best benefit from, within your means of performing or functioning in regard to that choice.
A Fighter is a Fighter because a Fighter Fights.
A banker is a banker because a banker banks.
We pick these things we do within a margin of (what do i want) {what am i capable of} [what do i need] and *what is expected of me*.
We balance not only yes/no but we also try to wrestle with maybe/dont-know.
Rather than addressing the universe as a binary, duality, yes/no, we have to actually take into consideration that our own free will and the maybe/dont-know have the same kind of substantial impact on our objectives and intents - that maybe this applies to all parts the same: free will to choose any decision that fits into vessel's """"(what do i want) {what am i capable of} [what do i need] and *what is expected of me*"""" decision-making group.
Assuming that every particle is not just material but also energy;
Assuming that every noun is a person, place, AND thing/group of things;
Assuming that all parts of the whole are part of the whole and are also affected by every part uniquely in relative contrast to each part;
And
Assuming that Humans' Free Will is not unique but an actual Law of Physics:
Then...
"It's quantum"
We are all particles and waves made up of waves and particles; particles made up of waves, waves made up of particles: in each part, a smaller set of eaves; in each wave a smaller set of parts...
A Fighter is a Fighter because a Fighter Fights.
A banker is a banker because a banker banks.
We pick these things we do within a margin of (what do i want) {what am i capable of} [what do i need] and *what is expected of me*.
We balance not only yes/no but we also try to wrestle with maybe/dont-know.
Rather than addressing the universe as a binary, duality, yes/no, we have to actually take into consideration that our own free will and the maybe/dont-know have the same kind of substantial impact on our objectives and intents - that maybe this applies to all parts the same: free will to choose any decision that fits into vessel's """"(what do i want) {what am i capable of} [what do i need] and *what is expected of me*"""" decision-making group.
Assuming that every particle is not just material but also energy;
Assuming that every noun is a person, place, AND thing/group of things;
Assuming that all parts of the whole are part of the whole and are also affected by every part uniquely in relative contrast to each part;
And
Assuming that Humans' Free Will is not unique but an actual Law of Physics:
Then...
"It's quantum"
I believe I know:
We are all particles and waves made up of waves and particles; particles made up of waves, waves made up of particles: in each part, a smaller set of eaves; in each wave a smaller set of parts...
Last edited by SuicideDo; Nov 2, 2015 at 05:58 PM.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
Originally Posted by SuicideDo
you always have a choice, and i alwayways assume you always pick the choice you can best benefit from, within your means of performing or functioning in regard to that choice.
A Fighter is a Fighter because a Fighter Fights.
A banker is a banker because a banker banks.
We pick these things we do within a margin of (what do i want) {what am i capable of} [what do i need] and *what is expected of me*.
We balance not only yes/no but we also try to wrestle with maybe/dont-know.
Rather than addressing the universe as a binary, duality, yes/no, we have to actually take into consideration that our own free will and the maybe/dont-know have the same kind of substantial impact on our objectives and intents - that maybe this applies to all parts the same: free will to choose any decision that fits into vessel's """"(what do i want) {what am i capable of} [what do i need] and *what is expected of me*"""" decision-making group.
Assuming that every particle is not just material but also energy;
Assuming that every noun is a person, place, AND thing/group of things;
Assuming that all parts of the whole are part of the whole and are also affected by every part uniquely in relative contrast to each part;
And
Assuming that Humans' Free Will is not unique but an actual Law of Physics:
Then...
"It's quantum"
I believe I know:
We are all particles and waves made up of waves and particles; particles made up of waves, waves made up of particles: in each part, a smaller set of eaves; in each wave a smaller set of parts...
Are you talking about the interaction of the probability amplitudes of particles with themselves and with other particles in quantum physics? I mean half the stuff you say sounds like (and, taken literally, is) bullshit with no relation to any sort of logical point you could be trying to make. I can't help but feel this is either because your points are bullshit with no relation to any sort of logic, or because your aren't drawing a clear enough distinction between things said to justify your point, and things made to explain and communicate my point.
For example I could explain the idea of sets and subsets of... lets say... atomic and fundamental particles to a class by using the analogy of students (individual species of quarks) in classes (individual categories of quarks (bosons and fermions or quarks and antiquarks)) determined by their grade and subject (spin or charge), and more broadly placed into year groups (neutrons and protons) which are more broadly placed into schools (atoms). This analogy has weaknesses, I will admit, but the specifics are irrelevant to what I have to say beyond the amount of them. If I was not so short of time, it would be far from impossible for me to have found an example of a similarly complex analogy for this example which was void of such weaknesses. Therefore imagine that the analogy is perfect, and impossible to find discrepancies in.
This would be a fantastically illustrated and communicated point. I take something familiar which all the receivers of the analogy will understand and be comfortable with, and I describe something unknown to them in terms of it, so that preexisting conceptual links are used and no new understanding is required throughout the duration of the explanation.
However if I was to use that analogy as a justification for the existence of quarks in their different types, and their various qualities, then people could rightfully call it irrational. The given countries education system has no effect on fundamental particle physics, at least not at the level or insofar as the qualities considered by the analogy. It is a human construct, an emergent, chaotic, and non-fundamental result of human culture.
Another example of an analogy used as a justification would be indecision being used to justify free will. Our free would only apply to decisions, and would apply equally to all of them (especially if if was a natural law like you somehow assumed). Indecision would be as pre-determined or undetermined as the the rest of our behaviour. Therefore making a distinction between binary decisions and indecision/probabilistic predictions makes no difference to the nature or plausibility of free will. Free will would be just as likely to exist with binary decisions as it would be without them. It is an ok analogy, but on a completely different scale to a natural law. Probability amplitudes of quantum particles acting on a "maybe/unknown" basis or being undetermined would be relevant justification. Whereas saying people's minds not being made up has an effect on free will as irrational as saying the US board of education has control over the characteristics of fundamental particles.
I believe it is a similar thing with your noun analogy and particle's being energy analogies. Both are irrelevant to free will for reasons which should be obvious. (energy being equivalent to mass does not effect how the particle's behave in a way applicable to free will). A particle is not matter as well as energy, the only measurement of quantity of matter is energy, which is the same as mass, it is not a distinction which need me made here. Wave particle duality might be more relevant, and I see you start talking about it by the end of your post.
As for the stuff in the spoiler, fractals are another analogy. They are mathematical constructs which do not exist as a physical law. The constants are also only mathematical constructs. They do not support your claim that each part of the universe is a blueprint of the whole of the universe. One is unable to calculate the exact composure of the entire universe given a single particle, because multiple combinations of inputs can create the same behaviour. It is fascinating that it should take so long for you to grasp the idea that a part of something is not that thing, and that you require all the parts, or all but one, to make a functional blueprint of the whole. Feel free to present (what you believe to be) evidence to support your point, but otherwise don't state it as fact.
Despite the prior criticisms of your post, I would argue that the jump you made next was the most absurd. We can't direct energy with our attention, that has never happened and never will. Particles are not affected by the behaviour of particles in our mind in a great enough way for the effect of it to be anything but negligible. The forces already acting on things are too unpredictable and powerful for us to ever make a noticeable difference on them intentionally without physical intervention. Arguably even more embarrassingly for you is that none of the things you said in your post before have any relevance to this "mind energy" bullshit. So prove it with evidence, find evidence of mystics performed under laboratory conditions where at least 1/4th of the researchers aren't obviously biased as fuck.
Feel free to take some time replying to this, it took me
Last edited by Zelda; Nov 2, 2015 at 09:00 PM.
Reason: only took 2 hours.
Originally Posted by Zelda
...... -(energy being equivalent to mass does not effect how the particle's behave in a way applicable to free will). A particle is not matter as well as energy, the only measurement of quantity of matter is energy, which is the same as mass, it is not a distinction which need me made here. Wave particle duality might be more relevant, and I see you start talking about it by the end of your post.
As for the stuff in the spoiler, fractals are another analogy. They are mathematical constructs which do not exist as a physical law. The constants are also only mathematical constructs. They do not support your claim that each part of the universe is a blueprint of the whole of the universe. One is unable to calculate the exact composure of the entire universe given a single particle, because multiple combinations of inputs can create the same behaviour. It is fascinating that it should take so long for you to grasp the idea that a part of something is not that thing, and that you require all the parts, or all but one, to make a functional blueprint of the whole. Feel free to present (what you believe to be) evidence to support your point, but otherwise don't state it as fact.
Despite the prior criticisms of your post, I would argue that the jump you made next was the most absurd. We can't direct energy with our attention, that has never happened and never will. Particles are not affected by the behaviour of particles in our mind in a great enough way for the effect of it to be anything but negligible. The forces already acting on things are too unpredictable and powerful for us to ever make a noticeable difference on them intentionally without physical intervention. Arguably even more embarrassingly for you is that none of the things you said in your post before have any relevance to this "mind energy" bullshit. So prove it with evidence, find evidence of mystics performed under laboratory conditions where at least 1/4th of the researchers aren't obviously biased as fuck.
Feel free to take some time replying to this, it took me32 solid hours to write this post, and I want empirical evidence or blood for it.
The relation between the material/energy duality and Free Will should be self evident upon introspective analysis, but if i could explain it better i would, the best i can say is breathe intentionally. then try to be aware of your breath WITHOUT breathing intentionally.
You breathe autonomously, but can you be aware of the autonomy without affecting the process?
Your decisions are so minute that they are before the action ever becomes calculated, much less executed.
Free will is something subtle enough to distinguish material from potential material. internally and externally: As in the vessel itself, and the vessel's environment. When it comes to free will, you are braiding three concepts together:
Willpower and choice/decision making
An environment with laws of Physics
And an interactive and immersed vessel affected by willpower within the environment and its physics.
The environment relates to the physical laws which govern the vessel. The material/energy relates to the vessel itself. the willpower relates to what the vessel does within the limitations of its physics.
The vessel is both material and energy, but the conscious willpower to affect itself is a journey of self discovery, and that is internal. I cannot ever know your thoughts and feelings on this discussion and unless i demand them or ask them, you are not liable to offer of your own free will without prompting; unless something astonishes, shocks, offends, or confuses you. and i dont want your feelings, but to make the point - your thoughts and feelings dont exist in contrast to mine, but i do acknowledge that this is only a perspective, and a falsehood - the truth is that our perspectives are limited and isolated, not absolute. this lack of absolution guarantees a certain degree of willpower/"luckiness" within the paradigm of our vessels, the human body, as well as many mammals and other creatures - but with different and often more (apparently) restricting limitations.
I am consciously aware of the relationship in my body between material and energy and gow they transfer between states. This is martial arts and meditation at work, and the willpower to employ them and exercise their employment.
I AM the evidence and proof of the fact of free will's existence, but i cannot fully exemplify my will and self control simply by typing about it and expecting you to take my word for granted.
Your claim of absurdity is absurd.
a house is a particle in contrast to an ocean, and is most definitely affected by the waves.
Your thinking in an either/or mentality, i think. we are not just a duality, but a quaternary, and not an either/or one for that matter, but an all inclusive one with temporal and relativity displacement in an overlapping fractal...
Our influences, no matter how infinitesimally insignificant, still exist, so we cannot just outright disregard ourselves on account of our insignificance in contrast to the measurements of the universe. That's just plain ridiculous. No matter how infinitesimally small an influence, it still exists, and no influence can ever truly cease entirely - only change and alter itself until its influence is no longer recognizable - only to be replaced by a "different" functioning influence and continue contrasting.
The influences at play are indeed powerful and unpredictable. Their significance is only relative, and relatively employed.
So are we.
OUR MINDS have enough power to affect the parts of our vessels through the remote control device implanted inside our skulls... The will to type this article, i must have it enough to type.
The decision to argue my stance in this topic was made long before this game, toribash, was ever even coded. i was no more than 2 years old when i had defied to have decided that my free will was my sovereign and intrinsic right as a living conscious being.
Last edited by SuicideDo; Nov 3, 2015 at 12:52 AM.
Reason: grammar
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
