|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes: 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. This is all positively wonderful, but I hope you realize that you still haven't actually said anything yet. Here's how I paraphrase what you said: "The way to tell is to look at evidence, form a testable principle, and see if it works. And, when you do, you'll find out that I'm right." When I asked you how to tell them apart, I was really looking for something more case-specific than that, rather than an oversimplified restatement of the scientific method along with a half-cocked reassuranc that it works. I am a scientist, and I know how to put together an experiment and test a hypothesis. What I do not know is what physical, observable evidence is better explained by freewill than by cause-and-effect, and why this particular evidence is better explained by freewill. And you, sir, have refused to tell me this. All you have done is tell me that such evidence exists. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Start evidencing as follows:
Your experience of freedom is not consistent with cause and effect theory, because there are no alternatives in the future in cause and effect theory, but direct experience says otherwise. Then continue evidencing as outlined before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your experience of freedom is not consistent with cause and effect theory, because there are no alternatives in the future in cause and effect theory, but direct experience says otherwise. Are you saying that conventional science allows for no alternate futures.What leads you to think this? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
That's the whole point of cause and effect, no alternatives in the future, perfect predictability in principle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4644 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Syamsu writes: perfect predictability in principle and in pratice So we are in agreement that your anticipation theory is unnecessary and violates parsimony in science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
That's the whole point of cause and effect, no alternatives in the future, perfect predictability in principle. What you seem to be describing is logical determinism or mechanistic determinism.QM is not deterministic nor even causal. Nor does the uncertainty principle allow the perfect knowledge of any system required to make it perfectly predictable. In principle or in practise. The inherently probabalistic nature of QM, the resulting inherent uncertainty in the precise initial state of any system and the ideas of chaos theory, whereby tiny fluctuations in initial conditions can have exponential effects, means that modern science expects the very opposite of that which you are claiming. A degree of unpredictability is fully integrated into, and even necessitated by, current scientific theories. You do not need to invoke decision making toothbrushes or toasters to account for this. Your whole argument is against a strawman version of science of your own creation. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mylakovich Junior Member (Idle past 5712 days) Posts: 20 From: Cambridgeshire, UK Joined: |
This is certainly one of the most entertaining threads I've come across. Good show Straggler.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes: Your experience of freedom is not consistent with cause and effect theory, because there are no alternatives in the future in cause and effect theory, but direct experience says otherwise.
-Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Your experience of freedom is not consistent with cause and effect theory, because there are no alternatives in the future in cause and effect theory, but direct experience says otherwise.
Ok I have been following the thread to the best of my abilities but now I am lost. Could you please provide an example of a direct expierence of an effect that did not have a initial cause?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The direct experience of, I can go left or right, then proceed as explained.
As before, the thing to notice is that the alternatives are in the future, and not in the present. Most all science still has the alternatives in the present. For example the goal is survival optimum, then there are alternatives a and b, then a and b are calculated and so the option with highest survival value is acted upon. By this reasoning alternatives are in the present, and the lowscore alternative cant actually become realised. Still this is what many influential scientists regard as freedom. Where it leads to redefine laws of the universe is when you formalise the direct experience into general priniples, according to common practical knowledge of free acts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Its simply not the case that scientists generally support freedom, or unpredictability as you say. Instead scientists are increasingly edging towards explaining good and evil, love etc. that this is all some complex cause and effect scheme. As said before in quantum theory the issue of freedom is fudged with the observer. Take for example schroedingers cat in a box experiment, which is still hotly debated.
But when you agree freedom is real, then you might want to think about what decisions went into the creation of the species of organisms that we see today. That is how creationists think fundamentally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Syamsu,
As said before in quantum theory the issue of freedom is fudged with the observer. NO, IT ISN'T. THE OBSERVER DOES NOT MAKE ANY CHOICE AS TO THE STATE OF THE OBJECT UNDER OBSERVATION. IGNORING MY POSTS WON'T MAKE THIS NOT TRUE.
Its simply not the case that scientists generally support freedom, or unpredictability as you say. Yes it is. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes: As before, the thing to notice is that the alternatives are in the future, and not in the present. Most all science still has the alternatives in the present. As much as you want to believe it, I should point out to you that "the alternatives are in the future" is an ambiguous phrase to which I am having trouble ascribing real meaning. When a person, such as myself, asks for clarification of your idea, you need to use new words instead of saying it the same way that you've been saying it for a hundred posts now. Obviously, those words have failed to hit home: repeating them again will not magically change that. Let me see if I can guess what you mean. For me, I just cannot see how an alternative could be anywhere but in the future, anyway. But, as I'm sure you know, the “decision” always has to be made in the present. If anything defines "the present," then the making of decisions is it. Since Dubois’ theory is called “anticipation,” I’m assuming that it involves some sort of foreknowledge of the future as the basis of decisions. This sounds very similar to a recent thread started by Randman about front-loading, which is the idea that organisms were originally created with the ability to pre-adapt to conditions they would meet in the future. It also brings back memories of my first month here on EvC. One of the first threads I ever participated in here was Quetzal's Teleological Science thread. In that thread, we threw out a lot of evidence that we would expect to see if evolution was following an anticipatory (or teleological) pattern. Tell me if any of this stuff is related to your “anticipation” idea. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4644 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Syamsu writes: schroedingers cat I have been waiting for you to say this. I was going to bring it up myself. I thought this is what you have been dancing around when you talked of "observer" in Message 91 Message 147 and Message 151 What you are really describing is Different Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsYou are saying that in anticapatory terms the coin flipping system observes itself....this is Objective Collapse Theory You are saying that the standard interpretation, Copenhagen Interpretation, which says that you pick the state merely by observing it, is fudged. You are saying this(i think) because a deterministic, classical equation is applied to a nondeterministic theory. So let's see what mainstream scientist have to say about this: Physics Today, November 2005 "Einstein's Mistakes":
Steven Weinberg writes: The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wavefunction, the Schrdinger equation, to observers and their apparatus and here is the culmination of what you have said about it:
Syamsu msg 91 writes: So throwing heads or tails probalisticly leads to 50/50 observation of heads or tails, the observer being the scientist, but in anticapatory terms the coin flipping system observes itself, it decides it's own state, but the result is basically the same. Syamsu msg 147 writes: 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 Syamsu msg 151 writes: 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 Now Syamsu:-1- You a have failed to show evidence how anticipatory theory usurps natural selection as your title suggests. -2- You have failed to answer how anticipatory explains my question in Message 101. -3- You have failed to answer pretty much any question asked. -4- You answer in somewhat cryptic handwaving. You rely on vagueness to argue your point. You do not explain what you mean. Just simply mentioning thought experiments like schroedingers cat is not an example for anticipataory theory. -5- You are equivocating Science with Philosophy. It seems you believe in either panpsychism or hylozoism. You annoint inanimate objects with the freedom to choose and the ability of morality. But when you agree freedom is real, then you might want to think about what decisions went into the creation of the species of organisms that we see today. That is how creationists think fundamentally. This is how creationist think fallaciously. Edited by dokukaeru, : removed double bullet 5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Its simply not the case that scientists generally support freedom, or unpredictability as you say. No modern scientist I have ever heard of has claimed that the universe is wholly mechanistically deterministic and utterly predictable in principle or in practise. Quite the opposite in fact. Which scientists do you think have said this? What did they say exactly?
Instead scientists are increasingly edging towards explaining good and evil, love etc. that this is all some complex cause and effect scheme. There are indisputably causes for people's tendancies and behaviours. Genetic and environmental causes indisputably and demonstrably exist.That is not the same as saying that everything is mechanistically predetermined and wholly predictable. Not at all. If that is your understanding you have misunderstood.
As said before in quantum theory the issue of freedom is fudged with the observer.Take for example schroedingers cat in a box experiment, which is still hotly debated. The most common interpretation of QM amongst scientists in my experience is the 'Many Worlds' interpretation. Far from denying alternate futures and demanding a single predetermined destiny this interpretation of QM suggests that there are an almost infinite variety of possibilities.
But when you agree freedom is real, then you might want to think about what decisions went into the creation of the species of organisms that we see today. But not all possible variations are the result of decisions. Randomness, probability, unpredictability and a multitude of possible futures are not just explained by current scientific theories. These things are innately part of modern scientific theories.
That is how creationists think fundamentally. Even by the depressingly low standards of creationist thinking it has to be said that your position with regard to decision making toothbrushes and paper-clips capable of love is pretty 'Out There'. So - Come on creationsists - How many of you are willing to stand up and be counted with Syamsu on the issue of breadsticks, bottletops and bananas making decsions? Are the desires and choices of tennis balls and pepper grinders the method by which future possibilities are realised? How many of you think paper-clips are capable of love? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. 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