Hi, I had this idea about a year ago, and I want to just ask some people about it to know whether I'm correct or just insane. So here's the idea: When you scatter the balls on a pool table, they are each given a path, and although the pool balls may interact with each other in a cause/effect fashion, that interaction and change in their paths could have technically been predicted before it happened. That is, had we known all the needed information about their speeds, weights, directions, etc.(like how pool computer games can calculate the destinations of the balls) So this shows that once they were all put into motion, the final result is already determined. Well looking at this same princible on a much, much larger scale, wouldn't this also apply to all matter in existence? Atoms and subatomic particles are all in motion, so there was a time when they were initially put into motion, which also means that they all have predetermined paths to follow, which can be changed by other atoms, but these changes, too, are predetermined. Well if this is all true, and if there was some way to remove the Uncertainty Principle, and if we were somehow able to calculate and interpret the extremely huge amount of information, at any given point of time, couldn't we know the outcome of all the atoms, or predict exactly how things will happen? Now maybe someone would look at that and say, "now wait a minute, that removes the whole 'human free will' factor, and I can do whatever I want. To prove that I can, I'll throw this tennis ball across the room for no reason at all". Well not only is his brain made of atoms that are all just reacting in a cause/effect chain, but he's throwing the ball in reaction to what I'm saying, which would just prove himself wrong. So basically, my idea is that everything is one big chain of events that are predetermined. Please feel free to contradict anything I say and try to supply any counter statements. Thanks for all your help, and just tell me what you think about it. strategicman
I think you are close. I think that if you scale down and look at humans and our direct interactions with matter and other people areound us... we are the pool players.
I thought someone might say that. Actually, I think we're pool balls as well. We react to everything that effects us, and though we may think that what we do is completely based on randomness, it is not. Although it probably gets extremely complicated, going through the changes of emotions and such through our brain, our actions are just the result of something else.
I have heard that before, but I really don't agree. I have yet to see an argument that would convince me that I would always take the same action under identical conditions. The world around us certainly influences us to a great degree, but to the point of there being no such thig as free will? I don't buy it.
strategicman, exactly the point that i am making in another thread called "Determinism" here in physics and math
OK, lets go with the pool table anaolgy for a minute. You have all the balls on the table and Eddie Charlton is playing. He knows where evey ball is going to go and plays accordingly but his cue playing is constantly varying. Sometimes his cue is slightly off center and sometimes it's on center. His playing is constantly being reinterpreted and analysed, he know at any time he may miss the shot, the meal he had two hours ago starts to repeat on him, the over head lights remnind him of a dream he had 20 years ago, and so on. At any time he knows he can give up and go home, and not play the game. He can decide this even in the middle of a shot. So tell me is his game able to be determined by any one including himself? It could be said that the solid inanimate stuff is fairly predictable thus determinable but even this is open to debate. To say that a passing moment is determinable means that that moment must be predictable and as every moment is unique how can it be deemed as determined.?
QQ, acording to me then Yes. Related to my research, but if another human can predict his every move? Now, that is unlikely.
But we can't. Not in this Universe. We might as well say "What if everything in this part of the Galaxy is controlled by a giant, omniscient pink rabbit living on a planet circling Eta Carinae, who likes Hershey bars. Could we bribe him by dispatching shiploads of them in his direction?" It might make for some amusing speculation, but of what use would it be?
There's a difference between "removing" free will, and "effectively removing" free will. If the information base is large enough, free will, for all practical purposes, exists. On the pool table, given the vector and scale of the impact of the stick on the cue ball, everything could be predicted. But consider the universe; could a computer be constructed to monitor everything down to the smallest sub-particle yet to be discovered? If the answer is "yes", the universe is determinable. If the answer is "no", we live in a chaotic universe. So the next question would be, "Could this theoretical computer monitor itself?"
marv, no a computer cannot predict it because it cannot take into account everything, but that does not mean the absence of determinism; it is still linear but we know too little to predict it.
strategicman: You could be right. But then again, you’re hearing this from someone who doesn’t believe that humans can “think” – we only think that we think! For instance, try to prove to me that you do actually think. Trust me, It’s a difficult one and everyone I’ve ever put this to have failed miserably. I reckon (being careful not to use the word think) that our brains are nothing more than a massive complexity of pre-programmed neurons that have the capacity to REACT to experiences and inputs from numerous input devices connected to our brain. We can store memories and recall them, we can form complex manipulations of data to arrive at conclusions and then output them in different ways, which are received as inputs by other humans. We can feel pain, which is nothing more than an evolutionary safety process. We can make decisions based on the data we hold, but the decisions we make are based on previous experience and memories/ knowledge – these decisions are nothing more than complex reactions, we don’t really think about them. So you think you have a choice? So what? You’re not “thinking” about your choice, you’re just reacting. Everything you care to think about is just a complex process of reaction which has become more and more complicated through evolusion. There are reasons you may think support the idea of consciousness, such as crying, sadness, happiness, etc. But emotions are inherently built into us throughout the evolutionary process and are fundamental requirements that satisfy social interaction and group living / bonding – they are nothing more than signals and communication methods. Every decision we make is just a reaction process, and if you don’t believe me, then you try proving to me that you are “thinking” and not reacting. Care to meet the challenge? Before you do, ask yourself this: Where in the hierarchy of living creature to you attribute the idea of “thinking” to be appropriate? ….Do monkeys think? How about cats and dogs? Mice? What about worms? Do insects think? They all have brains and they all live in a complex world of social order where day-to-day decision making is essential to their survival. They have all evolved and continue to survive based on their ability to react to their surroundings, NOT think. They all have one thing in common – complex brain “ reactions” which grant them the ability to survive. Us humans are pretty selfish to think that we are one of just a few species that actually “think”. Yes, we possess greater processing power and have a larger storage mechanism but consciousness is something I believe is an illusion to us – a bit like many other things that scientist haven’t got to grips with yet. For the moment, it seems reasonable for humans to believe that they can think., and if that makes them happy then so be it. So I just wanted to share this thought (sorry, reaction) with you so you can extend your idea of pre-determined paths even more. The big question is this: You will only be right if I am right about the idea of non-thought, and so we have to ask whether our decision making is really a free choice or not. I would argue that even your so-called random decisions are not really random. QQ needs to think about this a bit more. You might think you’re making a free choice, but you prove to me that you’ve really thought about the choices you’ve ever made and not just based your output on a reactive process. Actually, it would be nice to unite our ideas to produce a collaborative universal theory which states that we live in a predetermined, non-thinking world where we have no choices and are destined only by fate. Cool. Life seems much simpler now because all my bad choices weren’t actually my fault. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think the point being missed is the Uncertainty Principle. That is IF you precisely hit the ball at the same point geometerically, with the same impact, etc, it will not necessarily go in the same direction. That is because at the quantum level the distribution of mass (location of each atom) is not the same. Statistically in the macroscopic world the average mass distribution figure becomes extremely stable but at a finite level it would not be exactly the same so some slight change in path, IF multipled through a vast number of iterations would result in a noticable change in the final result.
No it's not insane. In fact the great scientists of the past had a crack it. Without in any sense bracketting myself with them let's have a go. You need to distinguish 3 sorts of determinism: linear, non-linear and statistical. By the way "undetermined" means random, uncaused. You need also to recognise that, where numbers are used in science they are usually real and irrational i.e. consist of a non-terminating set of digits. It follows then that it is impossible as a matter of principle to specify such a number with infinite precision. Right? linear determinism means among, other things, that errors in specifying the initial conditions (unavoidable as above) are reflected in the final conditions in a straightforward way: if we know the initial error we can predict the outcome error. We can either choose an error level ("to an order of magnitude", "to 5 significant figures") or strive for maximum precision in specifying the initial conditions, which will result in an outcome with as much precision as we are able to measure. The outcome is therefore predictable non-linear determinism means that errors in the intial conditions are amplified exponentially in the outcome. We often then have no way of predicting what the outcome will be, even though we have specified the initial conditions with maximum precision The outcome is then said to determined but unpredictable. This is the basis of chaos theory statistical determinism applies in the quantum regime. Here the statistical behaviour of collections of quantum entities is known, and quite proper statistical functions can be applied to predict outcomes. But at the level of individual quanta we can only make probability statements. As it happens, by making quite trivial adjustments to the shape of your pool table e.g. make it non-rectangular you end up with a non-linear sytem. Result: chaos, even for the world champ. Nevertheless statistical determinism is still determinism (it is something of a mistake to think that Heisenberg "did away" with determinsim - he merely redefined it for the quatum regime)
ill post the same quote here as i did in my own thread on the same topic. "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." - Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace And i along with dav57 apperently believe that humans do not think by themselves either. (but we are not pre-programmed) The present is the effect of its own past and the cause of its own future. Why would "intellects" be any different.
Dilbert: When I said we are pre-programmed, I only meant the part of the brain which posseses the instinctual reactions that we are born with. The rest of our life depends on this fundamental base from which we learn there on after. The reactions which govern the majority of our life are based partly on these hard-wired, pre-formed parts of the brain. But I don't believe we are pre-programmed above this level, just to clarify.
MacM, with regard to true randomness I'm with you on the 'unnoticeable on the macro scale' idea, such that whether a neuron fires or not can be considered deterministic. As with regard to thinking, (dav57, I think this is up your street) I have been pondering over this theory which hypothesises that all human decisions are based on a set of fundamental rules (which I call motivations). I imagine such motivations are: variably weighted, non-fixed, genetically influenced and are extremely basic in how they respond. In this model, something like 'the drive to eat tasty food' would be a motivation complex consisting of a great number of elements. I think this is a realistic model of how we think, as it works nicely with the idea of a neural network and explains a great deal about behaviour. edit - added for clarity Whether a motivation is triggered or not depends on stimuli (which could be internal thoughts as well as externally sensed info) and the final decision is any that the mind predicts will increased the net weighted sum of these motivations. The obvious flaw in my concept is the fact that there is no free will; some one cannot intentionally behave in such a way that they believe will give them overall stress/discontent in the foreseeable future.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I believe we humans are mainly motivated by selfish tendancies. Even a smile has underlying selfish implications. Hey, look at me, I'm smiling and I'm lovely and totaly likeable. Perhaps you'll treat me nicely and give me something! Get what I mean? But lets face it, this selfishness has been our key to survival so far. It's just that back in the cave-day era, aggression, size and competitiveness was the issue for success, whereas now we have to be a little more devious Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes... selfishness... and I propose in the currency of contentment. A person might choose to sacrifice them selves for some other person/people only if the thought of not doing so indicated a life of misery or guilt. E.g. the motive of self preservation being weighted less than the love for an individual or their dependants.
Laplace was a truly great scientist, but his picture of the "clockwork universe" has been shown to be inadequate. Not wrong, but inadequate. And you are using words like "effect" and "cause" rather loosely. Of course the present is the effect of events in the past. But are these effects the only possible ones given the causes then prevailing. Same argument, of course applies to the future in relation to the present. So you need to say what you mean by "causality" I tried to get a handle on that in my previous. Don't you like it?
Very well put, QuarkHead. ----- Secretly, I'm not sure I believe in the uncertainty principle - how can we observe things on such a scale and be accurate enough to deduce true randomness? Perhaps electrons orbit at the speed of light and are only effectively modelled as a probability distribution field rather than actually being such a thing. (I was told in Chemistry that the location of an electron in orbit is undeterminable) "God doesn't play dice"
