Adult version of "there is no santa clase"

1250521573_today-is-the-day.gif
 
to repeat the implied randomness in qm would at best be a coin flip that might change your decision between say pizza or french fries. THAT IS NOT GIVING YOU CONTROL OVER YOUR ACTIONS. EVEN IF THE FUTURE WERE NOT DETERMINISTIC, YOUR ACTIONS WOULD BE A COMBINED RESULT OF YOUR GENES CONTROL AND COINFLIPS.

QM AND HUP DO NOT IN ANY WAY PUT YOU BEHIND THE STEERING WHEEL.
 
I often think about questions like this related to life, free will and consciousness.

Saw this book on the guardian today and decided to order it. The physics is probably very outdated but it still will hopefully be a good read.

9780140134629.JPG


The nature of the universe is something that just absolutely fascinates me.
 
Basically OP described what our "soul" really is. I don't believe the soul is anything spiritual, it's just a made up word. Moral of the story, we are dumb fucks just like animals.
 
IF UR BEING SARCASTIC, THEN YOU SIMPLY LACK THE INTUITION OF THE PERSON YOU ARE INSULTING AND JUST DONT GET IT. the past is defined and the future you suppose ISNT? LMFAO.

as for the psyychologists and scientists who still want to hold on to what they believed when they were fucking 5 years old, that being that their 'MIND' is 'SPECIAL' and somehow 'TRANCENDS' the laws of all physics and is 'DIFFERENT' than the underlyiny structure of the brain by using qm theory and quantum computing as a sidetracked way to prove that pixie dust was sprinkled on their brains---- i equate this to scientists who try to disprove fucking EVOLUTION by intelligent design arguments, because they simply are not intelligent enough to grasp what evolution is capable of developing because they cannot wrap their heads around the extreme extreme complexity involved in the trillion trillion trillion trillion more adaptations through mutations over 4 billion years of evolution that have led us to extremely complex structures in organisms we observe today.

 
I am getting the sense that intellectualism is nothing more then a self defense mechanism for you. if you were truly learning this stuff because of sheer interest, you wouldn't be calling everyone retarded that has disagreements with your ideas. try seeking knowledge for other reasons then to climb your delusional ladder of superiority.

now i didn't read this whole thread, but tell me exactly what your definition of alive is. From my understanding, yes we are still alive, however the real question at hand is, whether or not we have free will?

since every idea, behavior, emotion, ect, is just the result of past experiences combined with genetic makeup, then it would seem that freewill is only an illusion.

in regards to ethics, if free will is non-existent, can people really be held liable for their wrong doings?

was hitler an asshole? or just an unlucky soul with bad genes/ upbringing?
 
The thing about judging people is this. Hitler is responsible for his actions, not because he chose them, but because he was a bad person. In determinism, people will still be held responsible for evil actions because although they dont choose their actions, they are bad people. Bad people do bad things. Its as simple as that. Sorry i didnt answer this back then
 
Science actually has alreadydetermined that there is no such thing as free will. An interesting way to look at choice is this- WE make choices, but we cannot control who WE are. WE represents our dna built mental hardware, which is subject to causality, so what ever decisions we make were destined to be made all along
 
Philosophy covers this topic. We are more than just a " Brain in a vat", but I dont have the time or knowledge to go into the topic enough to reassure op that we are more than a primal concoction of hormones and neurons firing. So yeah I guess i dunno
 
Whatever you learned in philosophy doesnt really matter because philosophy is not based in science, while the disproving of free will IS based in science. Just fyi
 
Everythin's 'bout fuckin'.

But on a serious note, chemical reactions make up every single thing, and therefore determine and are every single thing..... that's no mystery.

 
You say that every particle must have a 'local copy' of the states of all the particles in the Universe. First of all, I don't see why this is taken to mean that superdeterminism must be wrong. Certainly, this is a much more reasonable assumption than the multiverse interpretation that every particle is associated with not one, but a huge number of different copies of the Universe (possibly several after each single measurement).

Second, if the digital physics hypothesis is true, and the entire Universe is being run on a big computer in some alien's backyard shed, this is actually exactly the kind of thing that you would expect. In a sequential computer simulation, when calculating the trajectory of any particle we have access to the states of all the other particles (i.e. a sequential digital universe must be nonlocal).

Going back to toy universes, it is actually quite impossible to create toy Universes that are not superdeterministic, unless randomness is injected from the outside. However, if the Universe itself is superdeterministic, then this is impossible as well!

A lot of the misunderstanding concerning superdeterminism stems from the fact that people do not pause to consider its full implications. If the Universe were superdeterministic, then the action of human beings would be deterministic, and of course counterfactual definiteness wouldn't be true. This is natural and what you'd expect, and if this were not the case it would be strange.

Of course, these are all philosophical arguments, and we should not spend too much time dwelling on them. This goes for arguments in support of superdeterminism as well as those against it.

What frightens me is that there is a lot of talent being steered away from hidden variable theory research, just because of these empty philosophical arguments. However, the good news is that a lot of work is being done. Take a look at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7015730500147X (available on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701071 - 500 references!) That's from 2005, there has been more work done since then.

see what I did there?
 
Ok so if we aren't alive, then there really is no such thing as life. NOTHING is alive. Therefore nothing is animate, and we are all just random occurrences of the universe being the universe. This may be true, but, something must be said for these natural occurrences that humans refer to as life. And the fact that there are chemicals in your brain that tell you to do something does not necessarily mean that they cannot be overridden. Quite often we see people overriding their natural impulses. Suicide that is not a direct result of emotions is one such example. Self awareness may be another, even though you could argue that it is simply an evolved state of man's brain. All I am trying to say is that the free will of living organisms is perhaps itself a natural occurrence, but that does not nullify the fact that it does exist.

If you said a star is really just a large nuclear reaction in space (which it is) that does not necessarily mean it isn't a star. Life is the definition that man has devised to explain the natural phenomena that is us.
 
Yes of course organisms deserve a distinction among other matter, but the means by which living things live is not distinguishable from the means by which a candle burns. On free will, the two things you have to think about are;

1 causality is universal (no effect occurs without a cause, ie everything happens for a reason)

And 2. Given the constraints of causality, how could you have possibly done anything differently than the way you did it (how could you have possibly chosen or made a decision differently than the way you already did.

Once you realize that free will necessitates a violation of causality you are left with two options. Either admit free will is an illusion, or suppose that the brain in an organism is capable of magic.
 
I agree with your sense of causality insofar as physics are concerned, but if absolutely everything is caused by something else for a reason, then how can a computer generate a random number? I understand that the wires and energy flowing throughout them cause this to happen, and no the computer does not have free will, but it seems to be something completely random, and therefore intrinsically has no cause.
 
ewww this doesn't even relate to anyone's argument but I can't help but no longer be impressed with your intelligent posts and look down on you condescendingly...
 
Heisenberg stated that there is an uncertainty with measuring any two things whose operators don't commute. The momentum and position operators don't commute (The commutator is i*h bar), except for a free particle I believe. You can't exactly know both of them simultaneously. It's just a measure of uncertainty. The better you know one, the more uncertain your knowledge of the other is. It's not that either of them can't be known. You could show the product of the uncertainties is greater than or equal to 1/2 i h bar. But you can know them, to some extent, and a mathematical statement of the uncertainty involved can be made. We're very certain that we're uncertain.

As far as I know, a particle still has what you'd understand as a position and momentum. But the limits to which you can measure them are different than classical, which can be done to infinite precision given the proper measuring device. Trying to understand this in terms of familiar, everyday life things generally creates an issue.

Source: I study this.

 
While I am certainly no expert on quantum physics this is definitely one of the most intriguing threads I've ever read on this website.

I was going to try to ask a question about genetic engineering as it pertains to this topic but I can't quite figure out exactly what the hell I want to ask.
 
A random number generator monitors a natural event such as quantum decay. Quantum physics appears random to us, but the reality is the fact that there could be a cause of the things that appear random, and that cause could be sufficiently random to confuse us into believing it was truly random.
 
When you fully understand the biophysics of choice, free will has no meaningful definition, other than "the ability to make undertermined choices. Since science has proven that this is not possible, the definition of free will loses all meaning.
 
Im sorry you couldnt keep up with me on this point. What im saying is that what we are Feeling in our own personal experience, is the laws of physics. So who is to say that other physical events dont have some level of experience the same as our experience. So when we die we still might have some continued level of experience. Sorry i didnt explain this well enough the first time.
 
This is called the hard problem of consciousness. Short answer is we dont know but there are many theories to what brain activity produces the feeling of experience
 
And im sorry, i have just met alot of a holes who defend free will through pompous and belligerent arguments.
 
Agree with this 100% this is a copy paste from one of his old threads on some physics form. (which is what my post was a copy and pate from the same thread, written by someone who is clearly not me. which op had pm'ed me about 15 times, because he thought i was cool and wanted to be friends.) This stuff that is talked about in this thread really isn't that hard to understand. It's just that no one really bothers to learn the Theories. (if you would like to learn the basics minute physics has some great videos it a good place to start) the fact that Op feels the need to copy and paste one post, To show people how smart he is. Makes me believe that he isn't as smart as he claims to be. I have met quite a few extremely smart people over my life, and everyone of them has never said anything about their IQ or how much they know about a subject. We just talked had a meaningful conversation. where I learnt something, and then i say to myself wow this guy is really smart knows his stuff. They never had to tell me how smart they are I found out for myself.

so is op really that smart idk he doesn't seem unintelligent, but i will say this. I don't know my IQ and I really don't care, I take great pride though in knowing that friends and a few co workers come to me with medical and science questions they have, and want answered. If i don't know i say IDK and research it then come back with an answer. From me doing that both me and the person who had the question are now both a little bit smarter.

p.s OP from your pms you seem more clingy than some EX's I've had.
 
Also, you seem to like talking about how smart you are, and in this thread you copy pasted something that you didnt write as a way to try and prove how smart you are. I thought it was you who made that post on pf but i guess i overestimated you. Now that i realize you just a poser, your disbelief that i originally posted this op subject in pf seems reasonable. Its always hard to acknowledge someone is smarter than you,,, you seem to have a real problem with it. Instead of justifying your own intelligence in a roundabout way maybe just take an iq test and shut the fuck up
 
Thanks man. Zzzskizzz would like to think that he could have thought of this thread content himself but its apparent that this was way over his head, which is why he was in disbelief that someone on ns could have posted this in pf. His friends ask him questions tho, so he must be some sort of genius
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top