Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
There is a difference between our percieved probability and ability to predict, and the universe being 'deterministic'.
|
I do not see lack of predictive ability as restoring
that which concerns me most- the human initiative
and responsibility that I mentioned earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
If you flip a coin it is "destined" to land on a specific side due to the cause and effect nature of reality, just because we aren't psychic and we don't know which side it's going to land on doesn't mean it isn't going to land a predetermined side. Whenever you see scientists claiming determinism is false because they cannot measure and perfectly predict an outcome does not mean it's false, it just means our measurement and calculations are imperfect.
|
You may be right, you may be wrong.
There is a considerable body of scientific opinion,
perhaps the majority opinion, which considers
indeterminacy to be a fundamental characteristic
of nature. It has been so for about 80 years.
Heisenberg - Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: The Uncertainty Relations
(from link, emphasis added):
Quote:
...the mutual uncertainties in position and momentum or energy and time really do exist. They are not the fault of the experimenter or the apparatus. They are a fundamental consequence of the quantum equations, built into every experiment in which quantum mechanics comes into play...
The true quantum interaction, and the true uncertainty associated with it, cannot be demonstrated with any kind of picture that looks like everyday colliding objects. To get the actual result you must work through the formal mathematics that calculates probabilities for abstract quantum states. Clever experiments on such interactions are still being done today. So far the experiments all confirm Heisenberg's (ca. 1927- USV) conviction that there is no "real" microscopic classical collision at the bottom...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
What 'randomness' does is suggest that there are uncaused effects, which defies everything we understand about the universe and physics.
|
I believe the idea behind the physics is that regardless
of the causes, and even if we know all there is to know
about the causes, the effects include an intrinsic indeterminacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
But we aren't here to argue determinsism we are here to argue free-will, and as I've said before determinism or no determinism there still is no free will. If determinism is false and there is physical randomness, that doesn't make our choices 'free', it just means they are dictated by radomness instead of physics.
|
I tend to agree that indeterminacy does not ensure
free will. It do not see how it could forbid it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
Free will is an empty concept, it requires there to be some sort of magical realm that one can acess unfettered, uninflueced thought to make a decision and that doesn't happen. Thought is entirely based on outside influences, even if one of those influences is randomness. Choice is a slave to reallity, it's a slave to the enviroment, a slave to present conditions. There is no freedom of choice, it's just seems like there is.
|
This is merely a declaration.
I may as easily declare that I can make an unfettered,
uninfluenced decision to do any number of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
We are subject completely to our enviroment, if we have free-will than so do rocks. We are not special, we are made of physical matter, atoms and chemicals. All motion and action we do that we percieve as 'choices' is dictated by something else.
|
Our minds and our physiology allow us infinite freedom
of action compared to any inanimate object.