The Impossibility of Knowing Your Own Future

Yes, there is.
I am not the one who isn't accepting- YOU ARE. You are unable to accept that your idea is in ERROR. Your unwillingness to examine if your idea is in error- and why it is in error is your shortcoming in this thread.

If you have "no idea how " in regards to your infinite loop problem- Read the posts I made, word for word and the answer "why" is there.

I know that it is because I put it there.

I HAVE BEEN ANSWERING! do not lie and claim that I have not been.
There's plenty of posts for every reader on here to plainly see that I have answered you to the point of complete exasperation.


I have BEEN Showing you and I have BEEN supporting my claims and I have BEEN explaining it over and over and over again- so do not make this claim. I have used analogies. I have used physicsl principles and I have even used harsh rudeness. Nothing sinks through your pre-conceptions.
I've tried many times, explained it many ways- The request is not unreasonable- that you utterly ignore or fail to grasp the answer provided for the request IS unreasonable.

Put it this way- Explain to us readers HOW you can make a deterministic prediction that FAILS to account for the reaction you could have- explain HOW You can make a deterministic prediction AT ALL - before you have factored in ALL variables?

This is the very basic concept that keeps passing you by- Read the post I made to Squirrel about the difference between a deterministic prediction and a "psychic" one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not a star at communicating either, and as I have said before I have probably been less clear earlier. However, that doesn't mean that I've changed the meaning of my idea or anything like that, which you seem to suggest when you say that I'm backpeddling. I had a very concise idea, which was that it was impossible to know the future, because then I could change it. I don't see what is so utterly absurd in that notion, so if you can show why that is so absurd then I'm glad to take that in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I couldn't, and that's the point! Factoring in all the variables would create a infinite loop when it comes to my knowledge and reaction to the the prediction, as I could always react differently than the prediction would have me do as long as I have knowledge of it. ANY knowledge would be false as I could always break it. THUS no knowledge can be made that shows my own future.

In that post you say that:

``If it's deterministic, you cannot make a prediction that CAN be changed, because no prediction could be made that doesn't account for the change.´´

This proves that you understand the subject. Why is it so hard to see then that my knowledge of the prediction (which is impossible to make because of my knowledge of the prediction) is impossible for that very reason? I can always change what I know about, therefor no prediction can be made that I know about and still be undoubtably true (it could be true if I managed to follow the prediction exactly).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Quantum Physics Mimics Spooky Action into the Past":
http://www.sciencenewsline.com/space/2012042316060022.html

How does this article's subject matter change the thoughts expressed in the OP?

 

Let me simplify the question:
How does "Spooky Action At A Distance" change the thoughts expressed in the OP?

Change "two entangled particles" to "two entangled cameras", one sitting in a containment jar, and one sent traveling off into space. A screen allows the viewing of both cameras' surroundings simultaneously. After a hundred years of travel, the scene(s) viewed on the screen are still "live real-time" views?

If the screen is accompanying the traveling camera, is the view seen of the contained camera a "one hundred year old scene", a "real-time" scene, both, neither, other?

That's not simpler at all, is it?

 

see below

first, what field of work do you do?

second, You Must (others here also) realize that this is a PUBLIC forum, and not a private forum only available to the scientific community..which means there will be ppl here that do not know how rigid the scientific process is,(much less care to adhere to it) allowances must be made..(which means some of you HAVE to read into what someone is TRYING to say rather than what they are saying (that statement is case in point,don't argue it..)

You guys are SUPPOSED to be smarter than the average joe,but some of you do not act smarter, you act like a bunch of children trying to prove who is better/smarter than the other..If you are truly better/smarter than the next guy it will show,you do NOT have to posture and insult (your frequent use of the word 'delusional') this only proves that you are not better/smarter than the next guy..

Yes, I have said that i am NOT a scientist(MANY times) and i have also shared many other shortcomings of mine here, (more so than any one else,(i'm stupid like that))
so what appears to you as Ignoring your queries, is me not trusting that you will hear what i am trying to say.(much less understand what i am trying to say(see comment about you guys supposed to be smarter))so no amount of you trying to shame/humiliate me into compliance will work(this will only get you a rant like this)

some of the less scientific ppl here post because they believe they have insights into certain things, some of those insights MAY lead some of the smarter scientists here to a greater insight that may or may not have anything to do with the original insight,some of them may be completely wrong,(could still lead to a great insight) but that is not an excuse to focus on their 'wrongness', this is only your attempt to show that you are smarter/better than them, it doesn't take a genius to point at what is wrong, you would prove yourself smarter by refraining from the insults and correcting in a positive manner(this encourages the other person to comply with your requests) not by making them feel like shit because they are wrong..
sure in real life this works well to shut someone up and make you feel smarter about yourself,(its still wrong) but this isn't real life, we don't have to shut up here.You can't fire us,you can't touch us, so be the smart person that you say that you are and learn what i am saying!


Yes there is reasonability in trying to teach the average joe the rigid scientific standard,(some of you guys do real well with this)but it shouldn't be with a sledgehammer...the world isn't gonna end if we just don't get it..
you guys are SUPPOSED to be smarter than that, you guys are the ones who should get what we are saying easier than us getting what you are saying

ok..i think i can be done with my rant now..
(alot of this applies to ALOT of ppl i know, not just here)

 

so you say 'entangled' cameras, which means that there is no delay because of the time it takes a signal to reach the monitor from the camera..correct?

what little i understand of entanglement says that when one particle does a certain thing then the other particle does the exact same thing at the exact same time, no matter the distance.. so the answer would be both are real time..

<confession..i didn't read the article)

 

Yes, and the article basically lays out an experiment summarized as..."Within a naive classical word view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events...".

Seems "one's" (person A) ability to "initiate a process to shape the future" (task A) could slightly depend on the ability (or wish) of future person A to shape and form task A in the first place (given an initial entangled condition between the two--which in the experiment link...was initiated in the past).

 

Nothing is absurd in that statement- as I clarified with Squirrel.
However, if you are using a deterministic approach to examine future events- THEN it is absurd for the reasons i have outlined repeatedly.

So, the statement is not absurd if you are discussing foretelling the future.

It is absurd if you are talking about determining the future.

No, Cyperium, no. You just flashed right on by it. THINK about it: Factoring in ALL the variables... You just used the words... ALL the variables...
ALL the variables MUST include any changes you would try to make. If you are not seeing why, express what part of that doesn't make sense and I will try my best to clarify it for you.

If you are saying you factor in the variables (Variables is the wrong word for this topic, by the way) and can then change it- You could NOT have factored in ALL of them. Do you see that?

Because your knowledge of the prediction was determined before you gained the knowledge.
It is for THAT reason, that you keep missing, that I have said you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of determinism.

Your knowledge that could cause you to change an outcome is Determined Before You Do The Math to become aware of the knowledge. Does that make it more clear? That you become aware of it would make no difference since it was determined before you did become aware. It was already determined what your reaction would be- Before you get the knowledge and before you react.

That is why it is called determinism.

 

I'm glad you brought this up and I figured it was a matter of time before someone did

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I was also anticipating someone bringing up the "Measurement Problem."

Either way, in a very very brief note in passing, I'll express that in a deterministic Universe, the Measurement Problem, Observer Effect and 'Spooky action at a distance' are not magical.. rather our failings in measuring the Quantum World with Macroscopic instruments that interfere with our ability to observe the infinitesimal.

Others may express differently and this one could make a very interesting debate. At that juncture, and as a hint- Wikipedia would not be considered a reliable citation... Gotta get out the Arxvix and peer reviewed material to support those concepts.

It's by no means because great intellect is required to understand them. It's simply because the wording required to properly express many of those concepts must be very precise and is tedious- It can easily (Very easily!) lead to misunderstandings of the concepts if something is not expressed very neatly.

 

Few years ago, I was a Plumber

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As for these days, I can tell you more in off thread but suffice to say I work in the physics department. FINALLY!

I'd prefer not to go too far into that in full view.

Before you say it, no, I am not the janitor

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not sure how to respond to this...
While I understand where you're coming from, the onus isn't on others to liquify words and if you look at the response to Keith, above, it can be very necessary not to.
The onus is on those interested in science and who join a forum, whether a high school student, a college professor or a carpenter, to learn and keep up.
You do have a point though, and I would hope that no one is made to feel "Stupid."
There is a big difference between being ignorant and being stupid.

Heh, I fail...

Maybe some people do, maybe I even do if I get my ego in a twist.

But never assume that is what people are up to. When you were in school, did you accuse your instructors of being motivated by showing off smarts?

When trying to teach someone a concept, you really have to hammer out, at times, misconceptions and try, try hard, to get them to unlearn a lot of material that will mislead them.

I guess I have been silent too long, Squirrel and you don't remember me but I'm not any different. I get pig headed too, I'm human; I lose my cool at times... and I am often wrong.

I don't agree with that wording. A person who is educated is not "Better or smarter" than another- they had access to more education. For myself, I'm still trying to advance my degree- with a LOT of help, mind you! - but rest assured that I deal with people far, far more educated than I am every single day.
I've come a good distance in the last two years and I won't deny I'm glad I have accomplished SOME things, but I'm not any better than anyone else.

Delusional can be an operative word, Squirrel. As can "ignorant."
IF I believe fairies whisper portends to me, I am Delusional.
It's just the way it is- I calls it as I sees it and I'm not out to Make Friends or be Politically Correct.
I pointed out earlier that I'm aware that you will press your personal beliefs OVER science. I won't tiptoe around it. I consider that a delusional behavior. It's like one closing their eyes and refusing to look at the reality presented in front of them because they do not wish to see it.
I think that can be nothing but harmful for a person and I won't pander to someones ego if they don't like the words when I express that that is what they are doing.

Squirrel, you don't HAVE to have a career in Sciences to learn science. I do not accept that as an excuse, really.

I asked valid questions to demonstrate an error you made.

Make no mistake that I hope others do the same to me.

I will assure you- my word as a man, I will make every effort to never have an ulterior motive to browbeat you or deceive or trick you into a trap. The purpose is to make concepts more clear by requiring you to think about your ideas and examine them.

Maybe true, maybe not.

But let me give you a different angle- I even may have accused Cyperium wrongly on this, I may not have. Time will tell.

Think about how many posters join forums in order to promote misinformation (They really do! Not because of evil intent, mind you but because they are, frankly, quite deluded.), push an agenda and in doing so, they create more misunderstanding and more confusion over scientific principles.
Many people join forums to help counteract that- to prevent others from clouding and confusing concepts in order to promote their own agenda.

I have no tolerance and frankly, no mercy for that kind of behavior.

Snake oil salesmanship deserves None.

You're not the first person, by any means to point out that I'm harsh in my words, Squirrel, and I do know myself well enough to be aware it's a failing on my part.

I can TRY, but I still screw it up regularly. Sometimes a gentle nudge is all that's needed. Other times, a stubborn mule on a forum will simply accept no less than a sack of sledgehammers to the skull before they will shake it off and think clearly.

Whether the Universe is deterministic or not- I am unable to determine which a person may need at any given moment and I either will guess... or lose my cool, or try really really hard to be patient when someone is just closing their eyes to reason...

But If thought lowly of you or Cyperium- I would not bother at all to try to post it out. I'd just read it, shrug and move along, aware that they are not worth any effort on my part...

 

None can know exactly what the future will look like, but the way we are heading into the future can only be pessimistic.
http://www.voanews.com/articleprintview/666457.html

http://technology.newsplurk.com/2012/05/report-global-biodiversity-down-30.html
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47421743/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T7NIqNmer48
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpr...-than-theyre-being-replaced-warns-new-report/

 

Simply because it is impossible to determine such a future.

The reason is that I know how I would react, that is also factored in. If I know how I would react I could always change it. Which makes it impossible to factor in ALL factors. Think about it, the prediction says that I will eat apples tomorrow but then says because you know that you choose to eat oranges instead but then says because you know that you choose to eat pineapples instead. Do you see that this could never end if I'm stubborn to always do something else than the prediction?

The infinite loop IS because one thing must always follow logically from the next. In a nondetermined universe this is not always the case and I could break out of the loop with an act of free will - which will of course make the universe nondeterministic.

What doesn't make sense is that what you say have the consequence that I could find out that I will eat apples tomorrow (no matter how well the prediction was made) and you say that I could never change that - even if it would be easy for me to eat oranges instead.

Yes, I see that, because factoring in ALL of them would require a infinite loop as I always can change the future I know about.

Determinism could still be valid, but it wouldn't be able to determine my reaction if I would change whatever future it gave me. That would make the prediction process infinite because I would always change whatever it predicted - I'm stubborn like that, at least in this thought experiment.

I know, but how could I know that I am going to eat apples tomorrow and not be able to change it? Because of that it can't be predicted even in a determined universe. I would never be allowed to see that prediction as I could then change it (and changing it would break physical law in a predetermined universe - as one thing always follows the next logically).

 

Ah HA!
NOW we are getting somewhere and I see the fault in your logic.

Allow me to clarify: But you hold the onus to read through all of it carefully. It's a long post so be patient. Read it and think about it as you go and it should snap into focus if I write this out well... I will cover the basics, then the details. The last bit will touch on your apples, pineapples and oranges. If you're still fuzzy after reading this whole novel, start to finish, then come back up here and read it again. A second time around after having absorbed it may help.

Fundamental: In a deterministic Universe, you make no choices. This is a basic and fundamental premise of Determinism- You have No Will of your own.
Whether you are aware of what actions you may take before hand or not... It's DETERMINED, before you know. It's ALWAYS determined before you know. So you could never make ANY change or any choice that is not determined before you do it and can therefor be accounted for in the calculations.

This is why I have been repeating to you that you are the billiard ball. You have No Choice. No Will. Not in a deterministic Universe.

Now, you were pretty close to what Determinism means when I asked you to define it earlier- Close enough for arguments sake.
THINK about that definition:
All trajectories started then, continuing in a cascading cause and effect entropy that will continue onward.
Right?
Ok, so since these trajectories obey Physics, you can, using observation and mathematics, determine, according to trajectory and velocity, what their futures are. INCLUDING when entropy breaks down into Emergence.

You demonstrated that this part you understood earlier, so you should still be with me up to this point.

Now, fundamental again: You are not separate, not divine, not outside of physics. All, again, ALL the influences in your life are PHYSICS. Every last one of them, and I admit, the billiard ball analogy IS weak at that point. But it's just an analogy anyway.
Every cosmic ray or even a stray neutrino that darted unnoticed by you through your body,
Every insult you ever took as a child, every memory, every taste, every kind word, every mistake-- ALL of these factors are a PHYSICAL STATE within your brain. Including your Genetic Disposition (Which is more easily determined than the highly complex interactions of life experiences). Your DNA, your hormonal balances, your food intake and what particles and nutrients and such that they contain, toxins and other things introduced to your body- all physical and all actions of introduction into your body can be determined. What effect these physical things have on your physical body and physical brain. Determinant. Cause and effect.
Fundamental: The mind is not separate from the brain, it is simply an effect, caused by the physical state that is the brain. Change the physical state of the brain, toke a joint, and the mental state is also altered: High. Cause and effect.
So the "mind" or "Consciousness" is illusory. They are, in fact, physical states projected by Complexity Alone, nothing more. No more than "weather" is a separate entity from the motions and interactions of air and moisture. The word Weather only represents the physical as a label. The word Mind only represents the physical as a label.
Due to this fundamental, the physical state of your brain is mired in Physics and is, therefore- Determinant.
Every factor, falling down and skinning your knee as a child, your mother patting your head- EVERYTHING bears a physical influence on your trajectory (right down from the solid physical state of your brain matter, down through the electrical and chemical interactions that make it function it its unique state as it's been influenced by all these factors, right down to the Quantum Mechanics of all the particles interacting and bouncing around, making all the higher components of that brain function- in its unique state...) and if you factor ALL of them, you will have a Map that points directly to ANY Choice you can ever make, because Every single one is INEVITABLE. Cause and effect.
Since our brains are so very heavily more complex than mapping the trajectory of a single moving particle, it gives the illusion of being something greater- special, somehow. But it is actually nothing more than a tightly gathered cluster of interacting particle physics, This results in a highly complex system, but the math, the trajectories, are still particle physics. You cannot alter or change your trajectory by free will (Which as defined is divine or outside of physics) because you have none. You Never Ever Choose Anything, you're forced into every action and choice by your programming, life experiences and influences and your genetic make up. Cause... and effect..

All of which is determinant.

THAT is what Determinism states.

Your concept is Non-determinant because you are claiming Free or Divine will, that can allow you to make a choice.

Does this help you to see why it is that in a determinant universe, you can never choose anything, can never alter any event, that they are inevitable, even if you have the Illusion of Free Will, you actually do not. So while you may THINK you are making a choice, that choice is determinant before you ever made it...

Does it clarify the Misconceptions you have been holding about what Determinism means?

Do you understand that this is not MY opinion or YOUR opinion- but a Base Definition?

I explained it right before you said this in that post. Hopefully, the detail in THIS post helps clarify it for you better.
The response you gave shows your misconception clearly.

You continue to think about micro-scale Quantum Physics with Macro-scale concepts. You're thinking of your brain as one entity. It isn't. It's just a cluster of trillions of interacting physical influences. It's a highly complex and contained data set, true, but it's still just a higher level pool table.

Stop being defensive if I point out that you have a misconception. We ALL get them, self included. Trust me, I've managed to stubbornly humiliate myself with many of them.

So you ask a question like this one which shows that you're not quite understanding the idea and then, you close it with your conclusion.

A word of advice: Do not keep Closing with your conclusions when asking questions.

Consider the giving of advice, here and now, an influence on your trajectory.

Cyperium, in your example of your "paradox," you say,
"Suppose they determine (predict)that the next day I will eat apples.
So, to be contrary, I choose to eat Oranges instead. How can this happen?"
The answer is surprisingly simple:
If you ate oranges, then the prediction you would eat apples would not have been made.

Again, How can this happen?

Let's go over a couple of scenarios:
If the determination (prediction) states that you will eat apples, that WILL come to pass. Regardless of your attempt to prevent it.
So, you are told you will eat apples the following day and you say to yourself, "I shall be contrary and eat oranges instead."
Scenario One: You get home from work the next day really tired. The car is low on fuel and you're hungrier than all heck. You get to the kitchen and there is nothing, the cupboard is bare, Mother Hubbard. All you have is the fruit bowl with some apples in it. You're tired, low on fuel, hadn't thought of that the day before... But the determinist saw it in the calculations. You say to yourself, "I'm too tired to try to go out to the store and get fuel... I'll test my hypothesis and be contrary another day; I'll just settle for the stupid apples now." It came to pass in spite of your desire to be contrary.

Scenario Two: Same prediction as above.
This time, you arrive home from work and absent-mindedly grab an apple off the counter and gnaw on it as you go over your TPS reports. You redistribute some logistical reports as you grab another apple and chew while reading about the shipping manifest.
As you go to toss the apple cores into the trash can, you suddenly remember that you were supposed to be contrary and eat oranges instead. You had forgotten. It came to pass in spite of your desire to be contrary.

These are small examples of HOW it can happen.

If, in a deterministic Universe it's determined that you will eat apples, then you WILL eat apples. You may plan on being contrary, you may make an active attempt to be but something will prevent it. Your knowledge of the upcoming event will not prevent you from being bound to it. And you will find yourself after the fact surprised at how that worked out that way-- you thought you could show that you could be contrary... so ahead of time, you may plan on doing something different, you will find that something prevents it or that you forgot to be... a factor that was In The Equations which led to the determination.

 

Two entangled particles are isolated into two separate containment jars.
One jar remains stationary at location.
The other is placed upon the first starship to travel (close to) light speed in any direction away from location.
Morse code or other simple communication method is used between the two entangled particles, real-time, by the stationary location team and the starship crew.

The stationary location team immediately gets several simultaneous messages (t^0) from the starship. The messages are separated as to the time period events of the starship, as they were transmitted:

Location time +1 hour: "...Everything checks out well. This is a broadcast test. Testing, Testing..."

Location time +X hours: "...We have reached X distance from stationary location, have completed reversal maneuvers, regaining (close to) light speed, and returning to stationary location, over..."

Returned to Stationary Location (time dilation puts starship far into future than noted by Stationary Location message received at t^0) : "...Sorry we cannot be with you....We have returned, and have caught up on the news in your future. Here is a list of assassination attempts and accidental events to avoid. Here is a list of race track and sports event outcomes to bet my money on...please place winnings in my bank account...over...never mind...assassination attempts and accidents are no longer possible in this future time...all betting is futile and was eliminated...damn...over..."

 

PM me this..
(btw Janitors can be a good career,I had often thought it would be a good way to educate oneself if they don't want the pressure of the rigid scientific process.and sometime it can pay better)
(also btw,i have been a contractor (economy killed that), and a janitor and am currently applying at the college for a 20 an hour job as janitor)
have always been interested in science..(pry because in science 1+1 ALWAYS = 2..as opposed to non science vocations are susceptible to the whims of the boss's)

like i said there is a reasonability to it..but the majority of new ppl who join up are looking for validation, you can give them validation while also correcting there errors (true, it takes someone smarter than i to do this, but i know it is possible)
and you assume that they have a sense of responsibility to correct their beliefs (not true of most ppl i know)

actually, yes i have..I have a tendency to say what i think/feel, and not to conceal any thoughts(yes this has gotten me in trouble many times,but i value honesty more than anything..)

true enough, but this won't happen if they are too busy defending themselves from insults.

fair enough...

see above about distractions from insulting..it may be an appropriate word for you to use but if it distracts from your point by causing the other to get defensive then it isn't an appropriate word..

It is my job ONLY to share what i know,the responsibility to listen/learn from me, is not mine but belongs to the hearer..IOW I cannot force you to Not believe in fairies (just as i cannot force you to believe in God) all i can do is share what i know,believe
IOW it doesn't do you ANY good to get upset if someone just doesn't get it..

consider:
personal beliefs are what drive ppl..even in science..IE, Edison believed that he could find the right material to make a light bulb work,he continued till he found the right material..he was not motivated by science but by belief,(actually i believe he was motivated by stubbornness)
most hypothesis (almost said theory's) started with a belief, it was through the scientific processes that turned those beliefs into theories (correct usage?)

fine line...between what you think vs what they think.. (see Edison example)
how many thought he was delusional to think he could get it to work?
(there are pry other more relevant scientist to use as examples, but i am bad with names..)

again education vs distraction..the word you use are critical to both..

I do have an associate degree in electronics, i started to try to get into a carreer in the sciences, but i learned real quick that i am not wired for that, IE the first job i got in electronics was a political nightmare, they were not interested in the truth but more of how things looked
(now i am not so sure that electronics count as science..seems more art than science)

I have argued this point before..
which is more conducive to learning:
user1; 2+2=5
user2: no your wrong,you are delusional to think that 2+2=5
OR
User1: 2+2=5
User2: 2+2=4

will comment more on this below..

the best way i have learned (me being me) is to ask questions, (ppl like to act smart by giving answers)(ppl tend to argue with me no matter if i am right or wrong)

see above comment about 2+2=5..
which is more able to instruct..it is irrelevant if the original poster admits he is wrong..as the reader i can tell who i think is right or wrong, the simple act of just a correction without the personal attack tells me it is the right answer, the personal attack just tells me that the person is more interested in appearing to be right than actually being right(yea..more interested in his Ego than educating)

funny..i just read an article in discover that says that certain snake oil can increase the muscles in the heart to make it a healthier heart..

fair enough..i understand imperfection,

see above about distractions.

thats my excuse..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am glad you have answered as you have,you have gained a little more respect from me(not that it matters..)

 

Or not. The kind of hard-determinism that you seem to favor is a philosophical belief. And it isn't without controversy. It may or may not be true, but it isn't logically derived from experience. For one thing, nobody is capable of measuring all physical variables with total accuracy, and then doing the the tremendously complex calculations. So it's impossible to test. Instead, it's an idea that's generated by philosophically extrapolating from some ideas drawn from classical physical theory.

Or not. Again, you are just stating your own metaphysical belief there.

Right. That's real life.

We don't even know whether all these countless hypothetical variables even have discrete values. Let's assume that the reality that we observe is fundamentally quantum mechanical on its bottom 'machine language' levels, so to speak. Quantum mechanics is still a bit of a philosophical mystery, but it does seem that some of the events on the quantum scale are probabilistic and statistical in their nature. Now factor in non-linear dynamics, in which even infinitesimal differences in initial values can lead to dramatic differences in how systems subsequently evolve. That looks like decent physical grounds for challenging hard-determinism right there.

'Free-will' just means that we actually make decisions, and aren't just inert puppets being jerked around by external events. The concept of free-will needn't have anything to do with supernatural origins outside physics. Our brains certainly seem to be natural decision-engines, and presumably they are busy performing some important task.

Or maybe electrons don't follow precise paths. Feynman says (in his Nobel Prize lecture):

"This led later on to the idea of the amplitude for a path; that for each possible way that the particle can go from one point to another in space-time, there's an amplitude. That amplitude is [unable to copy the mathematical expression] the action for the path. Amplitudes from various paths superpose by addition. This then is another, a third way, of describing quantum mechanics, which looks quite different than that of Schrödinger or Heisenberg, but which is equivalent to them."​

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html

That's your philosophical belief, at least. I'm not convinced that your way of looking at things is the best way or the last word on anything. Certainly these kind of ideas are still active topics of scholarly discussion and it's kind of anti-intellectual to barge into a discussion and try to shut it down and silence everyone else as you have done.

Or, maybe he would have agreed with Cyperium, at least to some extent. Heisenberg seems to have personally believed that the uncertainty relations contradicted classical determinism.

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm

"In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise."

--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927​

 

and again someone else finds the words that i have a hard time expressing..

 

We've covered this Yaz. You're repeating what's already been said. You're a bit late in the posting to grab a post from back there and try to squeeze it in, up here.

See: Copenhagen Interpretation.
It's a common misconception, popularized by "armchair physics books." Even true physicists get befuddled by it.
Again, this is one of those points where Popular Science articles and Wikipedia will fall short as a reliable source.
So let me be as clear as a can:

The ability to MEASURE the quantum world, a world that is smaller than our instruments; is currently statistical in nature, because we do not have instruments, nano-machines, that are smaller than atoms. We cannot get down there and "look." Without being able to look at both sides at the same time, we must look at one side, then compare it to the other.
See, Schroedingers Cat.

The analogy holds. We cannot see inside of the box so we must make a statistical probability that will collapse if we pry that box open (in some other way).
But that statistical probability is only a method of measurement... This does not mean that the physical behavior of the particles is statistical in behavior.
Only the method of measuring is. And we covered, early on in the thread, that we currently lack the ability to Measure, properly, all of the factors.

Yazata, you just contradicted yourself. The definition of Free Will, is that it is FREE from physical constraints. It IS Supernatural; it must be supernatural to be - FREE.

The measurement problem. Keith brought this up quickly before and I'd like to see this aspect of the topic expanded a bit as I think it's very interesting stuff.

The problem there is that we create the outcome and the collapse of probability with our instruments.

This is a bit tricky and a bit shameful... But Feynman is Well Aware of this...
So is Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking.

Trying to explain the difference between measurement and observation to a person who has not performed nor taken part in the experiments is extremely difficult.
There are a lot of fundamentals that must be learned and understood and the only real way for that is Education.
So a Popular Science book on these topics, wikipedia articles and the like, all have that basic failing- They are not supported by a readers underlying education that has been guided with instruction.

So... they kinda throw it out there and patch it up as best as they can, to make science look interesting, to make it not boring... and shamefully, it has the added perk of making it look more complicated than it is and making the author look smart...
It's good for funding and captivating public interest. But these guys are not above a little bit of Sensationalism or using big but unnecessary words. You know... fluff it up a bit.

To his credit, Einstein was one of the few who very rarely took part in this kind of behavior. Sagan is another, who was able to instruct without engorging the ego.

Awww... shut up Yaz.

1927, the same year that he formulated the principle. When it was in it's infancy. This was prior to Copenhagen and was part of the work that led to the formulating of Quantum Mechanics- QM was, again, in it's infancy. At that time, he was bewildered by some of his findings and wasn't even certain about them.

By the way, he died in '76...

That's a quote from before the positron and basic matrix had even been established.
A pretty clear cut case of "quote mining."

It's ok. He didn't do so hot, either.

Even worse was his timing, although I'm sure it wasn't intentional. He basically jumped in and confused the issue, right after I put a LOT of work in making a long post that should clarify to Cyperium the whole picture. Now, the first thing Cyperium will see is a Re-hash of the argument instead of my last post, which may help clarify the discussion, if I had made that post well enough.
He will read this argument first, only adding to the confusion... and have to scroll up to get to the other post.

Whether or not determinism is a Valid Model of the Universe or not or whether the Universe is Non-deterministic is irrelevant. The topic is not about that- the topic is about what Cyperium had perceived to be a 'paradox' within the deterministic model and clarifying what determinism means and states is essential to the topic.

Way to go, Yaz.

 

First, let me state that I have read and understood exactly what you mean in the above quote. You have to take that by faith as I have no good way to prove it to you. But I really want you to know that I really do understand it, it's not a bad effort on your part whatever my conclusion is. I wouldn't even had thought there was a problem if I didn't understand it. The examples you gave where the prediction prevented any change from me shows that you really do understand what I mean, I'm still not convinced though that I couldn't change the prediction given my knowledge of it. It could even be easy to change the prediction - and it wouldn't be the fault of reality or the determined universe, it would be the fault of the prediction which would have failed to actually predict my future given my knowledge of it.

Let's say that I was given the prediction and this is what it said (it's one of the scenarios that you gave):

``you will eat apples the following day and you say to yourself, "I shall be contrary and eat oranges instead."
You get home from work the next day really tired. The car is low on fuel and you're hungrier than all heck. You get to the kitchen and there is nothing, the cupboard is bare, Mother Hubbard. All you have is the fruit bowl with some apples in it. You're tired, low on fuel, hadn't thought of that the day before... But the determinist saw it in the calculations. You say to yourself, "I'm too tired to try to go out to the store and get fuel... I'll test my hypothesis and be contrary another day; I'll just settle for the stupid apples now." It came to pass in spite of your desire to be contrary.´´

Given the detail of the prediction I would recognise that the information matches exactly before I had forgotten about it or any such thing. Perhaps I would choose to fuel the car, or take the bike to work, or I would walk. Perhaps I would call my boss and take a day off. Even at that stage I had already broken the prediction before it could be prevented - in fact I could make it a point to prevent it even a minute after the prediction. I really DO see what you mean that everything in principle is already determined (theoretically of course), however any ability to actually determine it would be broken by my knowledge of it.

It's not because of any inability to explain what determinism is that I don't buy it, it is because I have come to understand that my knowledge of the future brings severe consequences to it that can't be solved, it is not that determinism has to be wrong because of that, it is that I can't know my own future and the reason I can't know it is because the process of determining the future would involve a neverending loop where it would always be changed because of my knowledge of it.

It is not the actual future that is changed, it is the prediction that is changed because no prediction could be accurate enough to account for my own knowledge of it. In fact, my knowledge of it would have to be accounted for in the prediction, what this means is that the prediction would have to account for its own result. Imagine that you have a calculation:

x = 1 + x + 2 + 3 * 3

How could you know the result when the result is in the calculation? It's impossible!

I'm glad though that you finally understand what I mean, I hope that I've got through to you that I also understand what you mean, but that I don't think that the determination could be that good as to prevent me from changing it. If you still don't believe me, say that the prediction tells me something really simple to break, like in a minute you will take the apple in front of you and eat it. I would have to get amnesia not to be able to break it! But seeing that I would get amnesia could make me throw that apple out the window and there wouldn't even be a apple to eat.


You say that I should stop being defensive and all that, but why should I? Don't I have the right to argue for what I think is correct? Isn't it possible that you are the one that has it wrong? I've been wrong too and it's not such a big deal. I could have been wrong at some things in this very thread too, but I don't think that I've been wrong with anything that has any real consequences to the conclusion - and as you said yourself, I know enough to be able to understand what you mean.




Also, I noticed the sidetrack between you and Yazata, the problem of measuring doesn't have to do with our instruments, this is clearly stated in quantum mechanics, at first they thought so but then they entangled two systems and saw that measuring one had a immediate effect on the other system which wasn't disturbed by any instruments. Because of this we no longer believe that the measurement problem has to do with the instruments.
``The routine explanation of this effect was, at that time, provided by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Physical quantities come in pairs which are called Conjugate quantities. Example of such a conjugate pair are position and momentum of a particle, or components of spin measured around different axes. When one quantity was measured, and became determined, the conjugated quantity became indeterminate. Heisenberg explained this as a disturbance caused by measurement.
The EPR paper, written in 1935, has shown that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, let's call them A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance.´´
From Wikipedia - EPR paradox - it doesn't matter that it is from Wikipedia, this is an established fact.