Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 151 of 224 (480152)
09-01-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by mark24
09-01-2008 6:45 AM


Re: Determinism
When you put an observation - or measurement device on light in a wavestate, then the wave does not collapse. So it is not observation that is key, but decision. But like I said, this issue is dropped with the observer in quantum theory, and there fudged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by mark24, posted 09-01-2008 6:45 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by mark24, posted 09-01-2008 10:50 AM Syamsu has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 152 of 224 (480159)
09-01-2008 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 6:01 AM


Re: Determinism
I think you are mistaken in that chaos theory does not involve indeterminacy according to the standard interpretation.
I did not say that chaos theory was a non-deterministic theory. I said that it imposes limits on the predictability of systems. Limits which you seem to be commandeering as evidence of "freedom".
As far as I know in standard quantum theory the decision is with the observer (or actually the issue of decisionmaking is fudged with the scientist as an observer, as explained before 50/50 uncertainty of the scientist, instead of indeterminacy of the system itself), and therefore there is no indeterminacy in quantum theory.
Quantum theory is inherently probabalistic. How can it therefore be mechanistically deterministic? Can freedom theory explain or predict radioactive half lives for example?
In any case I fail to understand your objections then. If it is acting indeterminately as you say, then toothbrushes can act alternative ways.
Quantum theory does not say that toothbrushes and coffee cups are making decisions any more than it supports the insane assertion that paperclips are capable of love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 6:01 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 8:23 AM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 153 of 224 (480160)
09-01-2008 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Straggler
09-01-2008 8:00 AM


Re: Determinism
Unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. You seem to be insisting that paperclips are not capable of love, and that this is some kind of scientific fact, that the love-o-meter turns to zero when pointed at a paperclip.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2008 8:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2008 10:16 AM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 154 of 224 (480173)
09-01-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 6:30 AM


Re: Romantic Paperclips?
Straggler writes
You earlier suggested that inanimate objects could also experience love?
Do you think that, as well as decisions, paperclips, for example, are capable of love?
Syamsu responds
I'm inclined to believe so
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am seriously beginning to think that your whole position is just an attempt to rationalise your sordid desires regarding inanimate objects.
Not that I would get between a man and his toaster............

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 6:30 AM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 155 of 224 (480176)
09-01-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 8:23 AM


Re: Determinism
You seem to be insisting that paperclips are not capable of love
Seriously. Have you heard yourself?
Don't you think that "Love thy paper-clip" is taking the Christian message a little further than intended?
and that this is some kind of scientific fact, that the love-o-meter turns to zero when pointed at a paperclip. Unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. You seem to be insisting that paperclips are not capable of love, and that this is some kind of scientific fact, that the love-o-meter turns to zero when pointed at a paperclip.
I don't know what reaction you have when you see a paperclip but it doesn't sound healthy to me.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 8:23 AM Syamsu has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 156 of 224 (480180)
09-01-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 2:11 AM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, let's design a coin-flipping machine that will apply the exact same amount of force and spin to each coin flip. And, let's say that it flipped 100 coins, and that 97 of them landed on tails. Would you take the three that landed on heads as evidence for "freewill" in the system?
I would take the 3 as an indication of a little freedom in the system yes.
This is the problem I see with your theory of freewill: deviation from the expected result does not imply the presence of a choice. It could be just as easily ascribed to random deviations in starting conditions. Coins flipping in the air are subject to the amount of force applied by the thumb (or mechanism), the amount of spin applied, the exact placement in relation to the flipping mechanism, air currents, maximum height over the final landing surface, etc. Even if I were to design a perfect coin-flipping machine, there is no way that I could account for all the possible variables.
I see no reason to believe that it isn't these confounding factors that result in variable responses, instead of an anticipatory action of the system itself. As Straggler has already asked you to do multiple times, please explain to me how you could discern between freewill and the effects of random variables?
-----
P.S. Please use "quote" or "qs" boxes in your replies, because some posts you respond to contain more than one question, and it's sometimes hard to tell which question you're responding to. Push "peek" at the bottom of the message, or check "peek mode" under "Text of message you'r replying to" on the "Reply to Message" page if you don't know how to do "quote" and "qs" boxes.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 2:11 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 11:01 AM Blue Jay has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 157 of 224 (480185)
09-01-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 7:40 AM


Re: Determinism
Syamsu,
But the observer isn't making a decision.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 7:40 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 11:05 AM mark24 has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 158 of 224 (480188)
09-01-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 10:34 AM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
It is not strict evidence that it is free, but neither do you present strict evidence that it isnt. You can use anticipation theory to determine the question precisely, if or not it is free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 10:34 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2008 11:11 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 162 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 12:48 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 159 of 224 (480192)
09-01-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by mark24
09-01-2008 10:50 AM


Re: Determinism
The observer is most definitely making a decision. An observation, and measurement device doesnt work, but a deciding device does work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by mark24, posted 09-01-2008 10:50 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2008 11:14 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 09-01-2008 12:59 PM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 224 (480193)
09-01-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 11:01 AM


Predictability
It is not strict evidence that it is free, but neither do you present strict evidence that it isnt. You can use anticipation theory to determine the question precisely, if or not it is free.
This is utterly untrue.
The most simple physical macroscopic systems with the least number of relevant factors to be taken into account with regard to initial conditions are also the most accurately predictable. Exactly as would be expected by conventional science.
Freedom on the other hand gives no reason as to why a simple system is more predictable and therefore less free than a complex system. The logical prediction of freedom as you have described it would be that all systems are equaly unpredictable. Which of course they are not.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 11:01 AM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 224 (480196)
09-01-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 11:05 AM


Quantum Choices
The observer is most definitely making a decision. An observation, and measurement device doesnt work, but a deciding device does work.
Observers do not make decisions.
CLARIFICATION REQUEST
Can you describe how, by who/what and at which point in the process such a "choice" is made according to your theory. Use an atom undergoing radioactive decay if you are unable to think of your own example.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 11:05 AM Syamsu has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 162 of 224 (480203)
09-01-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 11:01 AM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes:
You can use anticipation theory to determine the question precisely, if or not it is free.
So, you're saying that anticipation theory predicts the results, even if the system is not free?
But, cause-and-effect theories also predict the results very well, even if the system is free.
So, how do you tell which is right, and which is wrong? So far, given that both predict the results, parsimony suggests we should lean towards cause-and-effect, so anticipation theory is still at the disadvantage.
-----
If you don't use "quote" or "qs" boxes, people have to go back through the thread to find out what you're responding to. That's rather annoying.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 11:01 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 5:07 PM Blue Jay has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 163 of 224 (480207)
09-01-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Determinism
Syamsu,
The observer is most definitely making a decision. An observation, and measurement device doesnt work, but a deciding device does work.
The observer is not making a decision about the state of the object under observation. Anything else is irrelevant.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 11:05 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 164 of 224 (480226)
09-01-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 12:48 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
The way I tell which is right and which is wrong is, evidence of freedom from direct experience, practical common knowledge about freedom formalized to general principles about freecom, see if it works, and if it works better then the other.
I think anybody exploring the issue reasonably this way will generally come to the conclusion that freedom is real and fundamental in the universe. And besides it is evidenced by an influential professor. I suppose if you want to be scientific about it, you should learn hyperincursive math. But your lack of acknowledgement of freedom is not reasonable to begin with considering direct evidence from experience, and the structure of practical knowledge about freedom. Alternatives are in the future according to experience and common knowledge, it is unthinking and unreasonable to posit them as being in the brain, which is rather the real opposing theory. Its as if writing opton a and option b on pieces of paper, and then say that such are the actual alternatives. This theory is mainstream in science now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 12:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2008 5:54 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 7:49 PM Syamsu has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 165 of 224 (480235)
09-01-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Syamsu
09-01-2008 5:07 PM


Is your dishwasher happy?
This theory is mainstream in science now.
Never mind mainstream science. I very much doubt that you could even get another creationist to state that toothbrushes make decisions and that paper-clips are capable of love.
You have actually, and apparently in all seriousness, asserted both these things in the course of this discussion.
The way I tell which is right and which is wrong is, evidence of freedom from direct experience, practical common knowledge about freedom formalized to general principles about freecom
I have direct experience and practical common knowledge of reading books, posting on internet forums, getting drunk and a whole host of other very human specific things. This does not mean that it is reasonable to extrapolate this to a general principle that concludes that toasters and plug sockets have needs, wants, desires, favorite books or a preference for beer over wine.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Syamsu, posted 09-01-2008 5:07 PM Syamsu has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024