|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The observer is most definitely making a decision. An observation, and measurement device doesnt work, but a deciding device does work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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 REQUESTCan 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024