Free will We are always surrounded by an infinite number of alternatives and a person is the only one who can determine what alternatives they choose.
Science itself would be dependent upon a conception of freewill that was compatible with determinism, if the latter philosophical proposal was the case (either in adequate or absolute context). The bold part of the Zeilinger quote below in second paragraph. Anton Zeilinger: We also learned that the quantum world is governed by a qualitatively new kind of randomness. The individual measurement result is purely random, without any possibility of detailed causal explanation. It is not just that we do not know what the cause is. This is probably the most fascinating consequence in quantum physics. Just imagine: centuries of scientific research, centuries of the search for causes, and attempts to explain why things happen just the way they happen lead us to a final wall is something, namely the individual. Suddenly, there quantum event, that we can no longer explain in detail, We can only make statistical predictions. The world as it is right now in this very moment does not determine uniquely the world in a few years, in a few minutes, or some pages are omitted from this book preview philosophical ramifications are not at all understood at present. So in general, we have to conclude that while some commonsense pictures of the world are not tenable anymore in the view of quantum physics, it is not really clear how a new view of the world would work. One point is clear. The predictions of quantum mechanics are so precisely confirmed in all experiments that it is very unlikely, to say the least, that quantum mechanics is an incorrect description of nature. So we might now speculate a little bit about what such a new view of the world might look like a new picture of the world must encompass three properties that evidently seem to play a significant role in quantum experiments. The first two have to do with freedom. We might interpret the objective randomness of the individual quantum event as a freedom of nature. Nature gives us the answer it likes freely, without any predetermined cause. The fact is that the individual measurement with few exceptions is not determined in any possible way, not even in a hidden way. The second important property of the world that we always implicitly assume is the freedom of the individual experimentalist. This is the assumption of free will. It is a free decision what measurement one wants to perform. In the experiment on the entangled pair of photons, Alice and Bob are free to choose the position of the switch that determines which measurement is performed on their respective particles. It was a basic assumption in our discussion that that choice is not determined from the outside. This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature. --Dance of the Photons ###
Im takin in all ponts of view wit an open mind… an no personal offence was ment to you… sarkus... capracus or W4U who are “free will is an illusion guys”… im talkin about the ones who finaly go mad by thankin they have no free-will an turn into criminals/rapers.!!!
Yes… an free will begins in our brain by combinin internal an external influences... an then freely desides which alternative we will act on.!!!
Baby steps. Now: what determined the operation? If you want to change my posts into ridiculous irrelevancies no one can stop you. But you aren't addressing them when you do that. Considering alternatives is a mental action, and it is determined by the person doing the considering. The alternatives are of course observed to exist. Everything that meets the criteria of being a decision. Lots of things don't. I make no reference to "likelihood". I don't even care (in this situation) whether the determination is via cause and effect or the more physically accurate and sophisticated probability analysis. The decider - the one making the decision - does not know all the variables, of course. That's why we call it a decision, and note the observed existence of criteria which will guide the observed choice among the observed alternatives we have ready to hand. So - as observed - the alternatives and degrees of freedom and so forth exist. You are trying to argue with physical fact. This can be made obvious by doing actual calculations in very, very simple situations, in which failure to include degrees of freedom in even the simplest sense leads to errors of prediction and engineering failure.
Speaking of baby traits, you need to follow the example of an average toddler and ask why in regards to every step of the operation. Determination involves every step in the universe that preceded the result of the operation. The moments of a specific event only represent a very minor component of the universal action that is responsible for it, so simply asking why in regards to a limited set of knowables will not suffice. I’ve already explained to you a number of times that you can’t make distinctions between the behavior of a person, a rock, a planet, a star, a solar system, a galaxy and a universe in regards the determination. If you want to claim that people make decisions that govern their behavior, then so do the the above listed entities. For example since luminosity varies among individual stars, should we assume that a star decides to shine brighter on some days than others? Or do we assume that there is a determined evolutionary history that dictates the nature of a star’s brightness? So in essence the sum total of a person’s imagination at any given point is equal to the alternatives available for consideration. And in the case of the star, its alternatives range from going dark to nova as far as it’s brightness goes. But in a determined universe, its evolutionary history only allows for a particular expression at any given moment from the vast imagined potential for each of these entities. Just because its imagined as an alternative, doesn’t qualify it as a substitute for the actual determined expression. You can call a determined mental action performed by a person a decision, but it’s fundamentally no different than any other universally determined action. When you reference the actuality of alternatives outside of imagination you are disregarding determination. There is no possibility of doing this, that, or the other, there is only what actually happens. The consideration of this, that, and the other is essentially a determined channel that thought is determined to flow through. Since the decider has incomplete knowledge of the elemental influences that will determine the outcome, they are stuck with subjective interpretations of the determined process as it unfolds, and these interpretations are the imagined alternatives. Complete knowledge would not allow for the consideration of alternatives, because the determined path would always be apparent. Predicting behavior from an engineering perspective is not the same as describing the actual determined behavior of the whole of reality. Prediction from a human standpoint requires assumptions regarding variability in behavior do to incomplete knowledge. Assuming complete knowledge from a universal perspective removes the inclusion of that variability.
so I deliberately and arbitrarily mark a point on a blank piece of paper and a moment in time say 10 am. 1/ How can the precise location and time of the point be determined given infinite reduction to zero? 2/ How could any one predict including me the exact location and time given infinite reduction to zero? Yet the mark has been made by me and only me and exists regardless of incapacity to determine it's exact location or time. 3/ How could any thing other than the actor determine it's location and time given infinite reduction to zero? I am curious as to your thoughts..... Keeping in mind that I chose the location and the time to place my mark.
I understand, CH. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Care to cite any examples of such people? Or are you simply promoting QQ's efforts at "Project Fear"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ISIL leader - Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sacred Aum - Aum Shinrikyo Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jones town - Jim Jones Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! need I go on?
"Infinite reduction to zero" is irrelevant. The precise location and time of the point can be determined because it is the conclusion of a deterministic process. It doesn't mean that we, as humans, can predict the conclusion. It doesn't mean, in that sense, that we humans can "ascertain or establish by research or calculation" (per the definition Google offer up) but it means that the conclusion has been caused to occur in a deterministic fashion - i.e. the result of cause and effect according to processes where an input leads to one possible output. If the same input can lead to multiple possible outputs then the process is not deterministic. Prediction in a practical sense is not relevant. Conceptually, however, if one could know the initial state and the governing laws, and one could process the information faster than it actually plays out, then one could predict the output. You are confusing notions of determinism and practical predictability. If one knew the initial state and the governing laws, one could predict the outcome. They can do this because in a deterministic universe the outcome is determined by the initial state and the governing laws. "Infinite reduction to zero" remains irrelevant. The outcome, the time and location, is what it is because the process that gave rise to it resulted in it, the way that a clock tells the time because of the process that turns the hands etc. There is, as iceaura repeatedly mentions, vast levels of complexity between the clock and a person but the principles remain the same. No one disputes the process of choice being carried out. The issue at hand is whether it was free.
not true....due to the inability to reduce infinitely to zero. It is impossible to predetermine an exact point. The whole universe could be a giant computer and it still couldn't predetermine a single exact point.
If all you're going to do is post pictures of cult leaders without detailing and evidencing how they believed that they had no free will, and how they had therefore gone mad, as requested by me of CH, then no, you shouldn't go on, as they are irrelevant and simply a fallacious appeal to emotion. If, however, you can provide something that supports them being relevant to the discussion, feel free to actually do so.
Reducing infinitely to zero is irrelevant. IF the initial state, and the governing laws ARE known, then the outcome can be calculated and thus predicted. It is no different than starting with an input of 1, knowing the function is to add one to the input, and predicting an output of 2. The input may be infinitely small or large, or a number with an infinite number of decimal places, but the principle remains the same: IF the initial state and the governing laws ARE known then the output can theoretically be predicted. Why do you think that "reducing infinitely to zero" changes this?
never heard of prophecy? How about the book of revelations? or how Baghdadi believed he was destined to be the grand whatever of Islam. (and no doubt still does ) or how the Aztecs surrendered to the Spanish because they believed the arrival of the Spanish were part of some prophetic pre-determination... history is littered with such events. Most of Trumps evangelistic support base probably support Trump because they believe he is fulfilling role/part in an end times prophecy.
Prophecising some future element is a far cry from believing there is no free will. And where is the indication of these people becoming mad? So I ask again, are you going to offer anything relevant? Ditto the above. Ditto. History is indeed littered with points that are irrelevant to a discussion. Again, where is the indication of them believing there is no free will, and where is the evidence that his support base are mad?
Well no... no i cant Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah... after readin posts today... i thank i hitched my star to the wrong wagon last night Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I thank its cause one doesnt.!!! Hmmm... i guess it woud be like crusin down the street an bein happy that you'r easily gonna make the next green light... but at the last second the light unexpectedly goes red an you hit the brakes... ie... you didnt know the light was gonna malfunction... but in the big scheme of thangs... that light was predetermined to malfunction when it did... no.???
