franc

Fri 7 Nov, 2008 02:34 pm
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
Dependent is not the same as deterministic. There may be relations between all things in the universe, but these relations are not necessarily one-on-one relations.
They are not like a simple mathematical relation where for every value of X there is only one outcome.
They can better be likened to RND(X) function in a programming language(yes, I am a dinosaur). Every time you invoke it the outcome is a different number 0<1.

But even random number generators are not truly random, and true randomness is all that can disprove determinism.

Poseidon

Fri 7 Nov, 2008 03:21 pm
@TickTockMan,
If the universe were totally determined, then it would be totally static.

TickTockMan

Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:59 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;32065 wrote:
If the universe were totally determined, then it would be totally static.

sarek

Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:10 pm
@franc,
franc wrote:
But even random number generators are not truly random, and true randomness is all that can disprove determinism.

They are random enough to the user who does not know what is inside. And to the universe, we are the users. If there even is a black box hidden underneath the quantum weirdness we don't currently have the understanding to open it.
QM as far as we know now shows true randomness.

sarek

Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:12 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon wrote:
If the universe were totally determined, then it would be totally static.

I wouldn't be static, but it might as well be. The end result would be without meaning.

franc

Sat 8 Nov, 2008 04:43 pm
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
They are random enough to the user who does not know what is inside. And to the universe, we are the users. If there even is a black box hidden underneath the quantum weirdness we don't currently have the understanding to open it.
QM as far as we know now shows true randomness.

Is the whole of reality determined by our perceptions of it, or vice versa?

sarek wrote:
I wouldn't be static, but it might as well be. The end result would be without meaning.

This sentiment is the result of the death of god. The universe with god is meaningless? How so?

Poseidon

Sat 8 Nov, 2008 05:58 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan wrote:

The mechanism within a motor car is determined. Only when we add something else to the mechanism does it move. (The key in the ignition)

A pool of water is stagnant. Only when we add extra energy (a waterfall) does the stream start moving.

When we look at quantum mechanics, conservation of energy breaks down. According to Frijtof Capra (Tao of Physics), new subatomic particles seem to just appear out of nowhere.

Now consider the expanding universe. How can it be expanding if new energy is not added to the system?

Can a balloon inflate without air being added to it?

The concept of change is mysterious. Consider the atom bomb. It is purely the mind of man that has engineered it. Yes it is a mechanism, but how did the mind of man create it? The mind is the key that starts the engine and keeps the universe moving. The whole idea of how ideas form in the mind is beyond computation. Beyond mechanism. Beyond determinism.

Only when we look at the mind, or the entire universe as a whole (quantum mechanics) do we see indeterminism.

TickTockMan

Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:24 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;32294 wrote:

Only when we look at the mind, or the entire universe as a whole (quantum mechanics) do we see indeterminism.

So how do you personally see Indeterminism as it relates to the idea of whether we do, or do not, have Free Will?

manored

Sun 9 Nov, 2008 09:23 am
@TickTockMan,
The universe can be expanding winhout energy being added because there is nothing to prevent it from doing so

I dont believe there is true randow, only unknow facts. But, since there will always be unknow facts, there will always be randow. Problem solved

sarek

Mon 10 Nov, 2008 05:18 am
@franc,
franc wrote:
Is the whole of reality determined by our perceptions of it, or vice versa?

I am not sure I want to go that far. I do think that inside our quantum universe the whole of reality is determined by (our) perceiving (notice -ing). That is a subtly different approach.
But it does not have to be us who is doing the perceiving. I believe any form of interaction may count as perceiving, so the quantum universe is really 'perceiving' itself into being.
The whole of reality may be colored by our perception of it, but that is an entirely subjective matter.

franc wrote:

This sentiment is the result of the death of god. The universe with god is meaningless? How so?

No, that is not what I said. I only said a deterministic universe, just like a static universe is meaningless.
There is no room for freedom in a deterministic universe. The words 'will' and 'choice' have no relevance in such a universe.

sarek

Mon 10 Nov, 2008 05:35 am
@Poseidon,
Poseidon wrote:

When we look at quantum mechanics, conservation of energy breaks down. According to Frijtof Capra (Tao of Physics), new subatomic particles seem to just appear out of nowhere.

Now consider the expanding universe. How can it be expanding if new energy is not added to the system?

Can a balloon inflate without air being added to it?.

Yes it can. Picture a cannonball fired straight up into a vacuum. As it ascends, kinetic energy is excanged for potential energy. The total energy remains the same.
Picturing the universe as your balloon with air in it is a similar situation. The energy which is present in its expansion is gradually being exchanged for potential energy. Please remember that the sum total need not be zero! There could be a surplus either way(open/critical/closed universe).

Poseidon wrote:
Only when we look at the mind, or the entire universe as a whole (quantum mechanics) do we see indeterminism.

No, the quantum world is everywhere. We just don't always notice that because scaling up QM processes into the macroscopic realm usually means introducing overwhelming odds in favour of the most likely outcome.

Poseidon

Mon 10 Nov, 2008 07:37 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan wrote:
So how do you personally see Indeterminism as it relates to the idea of whether we do, or do not, have Free Will?

Well Indeterminism can be any of three things:

Apparant randomness (Chaos theory)
True randomness (May or may not exist)
and Free will (which is mysterious, or mystical)

To define mysticism is not easy. It defies quantitative explanation (by definition). The closest we can come to explain it qualitatively is by use of the Jungian Archetypes, which can be reduced to the five basic human emotions : Love, Anger, Sadness, Joy, and Transformation. (Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury).

Poseidon

Mon 10 Nov, 2008 07:54 pm
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
Yes it can. Picture a cannonball fired straight up into a vacuum. As it ascends, kinetic energy is excanged for potential energy. The total energy remains the same.
Picturing the universe as your balloon with air in it is a similar situation. The energy which is present in its expansion is gradually being exchanged for potential energy. Please remember that the sum total need not be zero! There could be a surplus either way(open/critical/closed universe).

You need to introduce the trigger of firing the cannonball to get the system moving : external input of energy.

The sum total is never zero, or nothing would take place. When energy moves from one state to another, we always requires an external input of energy.

Quote:

No, the quantum world is everywhere. We just don't always notice that because scaling up QM processes into the macroscopic realm usually means introducing overwhelming odds in favour of the most likely outcome.

The quantum world is by definition only below the level of the atom.

You presuppose that our world is dictated to by predetermined sub-quantum events. Something which has never been proven, and was refuted by the Einstein Podolsky Rosen experiment, leading to Einsteins famous saying 'God does not play dice with the universe'.

There is just as much reason to believe (in fact more in my humble opinion) that the quantum world is shaped by the world of language, in a way which is not wholly determined.

If we assume that the past always determines the future, then our planning for the future is illusionary. This is contrary to how we commonly live.

It seems much more real that the future is shaped by our rough idea of all the possible futures, which are constrained to a certain extent by our limited knowledge of the past, and by the laws of Newtonian physics, which are themselves approximations, and have little or no meaning on the level of Mind.

How the mind works in this regard, can only be best described (not determined) by the Jungian Archetypes, which can be seen to be based, not on the question : Who are you? ... But rather : Who do you choose to be?

sarek

Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:13 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon wrote:
You need to introduce the trigger of firing the cannonball to get the system moving : external input of energy.

The sum total is never zero, or nothing would take place. When energy moves from one state to another, we always requires an external input of energy.

What if the sum total kinetic energy of all moving objects in a system is equal but opposite to the total potential energy said objects have in the sum total gravity field of the system. Would that not equal a net system energy of zero?
How about a quantum fluctuation, governed by the rules of Heisenberg. If the net energy were zero, the duration would be indefinite.

Poseidon wrote:

The quantum world is by definition only below the level of the atom.

Aren't we all composed of baryons and leptons?
Even if you take a Googol times a Googol quantum events they still remain quantum events.
It may be that the effects of quantum uncertainty are at macroscopic scales rendered almost completely undetectable by the overwhelming power of statistics. But they do not disappear. And I believe that through the mechanisms of chaos dynamics sometimes quantum effects may even become macroscopically detectable.

Poseidon wrote:

You presuppose that our world is dictated to by predetermined sub-quantum events. Something which has never been proven, and was refuted by the Einstein Podolsky Rosen experiment, leading to Einsteins famous saying 'God does not play dice with the universe'.

Actually I presuppose the exact opposite. Predetermined sub quantum events? Is that not a contradiction in terms? By definition quantum events are not predetermined. From where we, as temporal beings stand, the events in the universe are not predetermined. For us, time's arrow moves only forward.

Poseidon

Mon 17 Nov, 2008 10:05 pm
@TickTockMan,
Quote:

And I believe that through the mechanisms of chaos dynamics sometimes

Chaos is not a mechanism. Order is a mechanism.

Quote:

quantum effects may even become macroscopically detectable.

Example?

sarek

Tue 18 Nov, 2008 01:31 am
@Poseidon,
Poseidon wrote:

Example?

Try a quantum event leading to the firing of a single neuron inside the brain of a butterfly in Central Park New York.

I admit, that won't happen often. But the key to indeterminism is that you cannot exclude it 100%

manored

Tue 18 Nov, 2008 03:37 pm
@sarek,
There is always some unknow factor, therefore there is always uncertainty