“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[peacegirl]

I never said QM causes people to make choices. I have already reported two of your posts. If you keep misrepresenting what I said, I will report the misrepresentation. Final warning.

I didn't say you did. Stop misrepresenting me or I'll report YOU.

 

[pood]

If you can prove that QM can cause a person to make a different choice than the one that was chosen --- with all of the antecedents in place --- I will concede

I never made this argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

Pood, you're great, but you're taking the engagement bait.

I was really hoping to maybe discuss that block flatland universe idea a bit with you, but if you keep engaging the sycophantic posts, it just gets buried.

 

[pood]

Pood, you're great, but you're taking the engagement bait.

I was really hoping to maybe discuss that block flatland universe idea a bit with you, but if you keep engaging the sycophantic posts, it just gets buried.

You’re right, but I reported two posts, so we will see what happens.

 

[pood]

At any rate, this is a good time to discuss QM, maybe in a different thread, because it is the 100th anniversary of its mathematical formalization, but its roots to back to the turn of the 20th century, with the black body problem, ultraviolet catastrophe, Einstein quantizing light, etc.

 

[Elixir]

Counterfactual reasoning means thinking about alternative possibilities for past or future events

In this context it means things you know that are not so. Like instant perception, hard determinism etc.
Reasserting the correctness of such falsehoods does nothing to make them less false. What it does, is render you non-communicable. Sorry, but your influence on page length is something I know how to correct.
Have a nice day.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl it is not just pood invoking QM.

A long running debate in both science and philosophy began from the start of QM as to whether the universe is fundamentally probabilistic or indeterminate versus deterministic.

It is not settled and there are multiple views and interventions of QM. QM as in actuality physical measurements and experiments, not abstract metaphysics.

If y0o want to dismiss Heisenberg and Bohr you really are ignorant, you may not even know who they were.

QM is a commojn well used theory used daily inn technology, for example designing and manufacturing the processor in your computer.

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have to agree with pood, you are crossing over to blatant ad moms to cover your ass and your ignorance.

When you say that this debate has is of no consequence, I’ve lost all interest in anything you have to say. Tootaloo!

The scientific debate is consequential. There is always the potential to lead to new science.

I suspect you may be in the middle of a late in life reality check. I could be wrong, I don't think any of here are exerts. It is that you are just not up to the usual level of debate around here. You get frustrated and angry. You lack the fundamentals needed to have a discussion.

There is a long history of people showing up telling us all we are wrong on something, eventually resorting to ad homs. and eventually getting banned. It is hard to get banned here, you have to really work at it, but it happens.

You are far from new to us. Kind of routine.

I’m frustrated, for good reason. I have said nothing mean or hurtful. Pood just wants to call me out on anything even slightly resembling an ad hom so he can get me blocked.

Cry me a river.

 

[steve_bank]

I never said QM causes people to make choices. I have already reported two of your posts. If you keep misrepresenting what I said, I will report the misrepresentation. Final warning.

I didn't say you did. Stop misrepresenting me or I'll report YOU.

 

[Jarhyn]

One interesting aspect to think about with regards to flatland is what changes when we place the tile placement regime, or even the specific aperiodic monotile in use: specter is a family related to that which is non-chiral, meaning that one orientation without flips, which would necessarily create a different field shape than the chiral hat. Likewise, we could select a radically different location or perhaps an entirely different field by choosing a different placement regime.

It might even prompt the question whether reference frames with a theoretically infinite distance between them are part of the same field at all, which I think has something to do with the axiom of infinite choice.

But this consideration itself gives rise to the idea of alternative possibilities of the initial condition, for all the initial condition was something specific.

Indeed in this mathematical system, for all the parts are deterministic, the initial condition can be treated separately and as some arbitrary thing, as the whole point is that all aspects of the function are independent of the reference frame on which that function occurs.

By examining an entirely constructable system, or a system close to a constructable one at any rate, whose vagaries are immaterial to the point, we can actually make some examination of claims about deterministic systems.

I've purposefully picked a system that has randomness but in a way produced by deterministic action, obeying the real statistical and mathematical definition of randomness: that which cannot be correlated to previous observation.

It is a system which has properties that are very useful for disproving certain claims about determinism in general, especially when dealing with spatial questions. Much like Cantor's Set is useful for wrecking all kinds of claims in its own right, as it's properties are held in the absence of other properties.

The biggest observation though is that to handle it, you need to place a reference frame on some euclidean (or euclidean enough) space, and when you do that, you see that "possibility" successfully reduces to "location".

 

[DBT]

It's not how determinism is defined.

Dude, I presented you everything you would need to do to construct a perfectly deterministic flatland universe that you can hold actual block frames in your hand.

You do not understand determinism.

Quit pretending ignorance is the equal of reasoned thought.

Dude? Your presentation failed to account for the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be, even as you defined it to be.

Which shows that you continue to fail to grasp the implications of determinism as you, yourself described it.

Your flatland example is completely irrelevant to the discussion or dispute. You may as well talk about the Disney universe and Micky Mouse.

 

[DBT]

As for QM as a means of rescuing the notion of free will, it doesn't matter if quantum events effect the macro world probabilistically or randomly, that is not a part of compatibilist argument for free will, nor is it how decisions are made by a brain. Radioactive decay or random firings neurons has nothing to do with thinking or acting rationally, nor how the world works according to compatibilism.

 

[peacegirl]

An article that calls into question QM having any effect on human decision-making.

Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will?

Superdeterminism, a radical quantum hypothesis, says our “choices” are illusory

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[pood]

So peacegirl gets on her Google to find something about quantum mechanics and free will. How nice.

Putting aside, of course, the fact that no one here is invoking QM to defend compatibilism. I raised it only to question the very first premise of the entire discussion — the premise being that the world is in fact deterministic. What if it isn’t? But no, it appears peacegirl remains intent on misrepresenting what others say.

That said, superdeterminism is not quantum mechanics — as the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who supports superdeterminism, has argued, it is a replacement for QM.

Almost no physicist takes superdeterminism seriously. First, it is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. But more outlandishly, it claims that every experiment we conduct will show QM to be indeterministic when it fact it is not. As many have pointed out, this would throw into question the value of science itself. Superdeterminism is kind of the scientific equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

The fantasy behind Sabine Hossenfelder’s superdeterminism

In which the author likens belief in it to belief that an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster pushes planets in their orbits.

 

[pood]

Since peacegirl raised superdeterminism, how about this idea: Our physical body is a quantum/classical machine operated by free-will decisions of quantum fields. More, the authors (one of whom is the inventor of the microprocessor) say that this idea is testable. If correct, we have libertarian free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your presentation failed to account for the terms and conditions of determinism

Yet again no, it doesn't. You don't even have the capacity to identify a deterministic system. Please leave this conversation now. You have deposed yourself almost as thoroughly as peacegirl.

 

[Jarhyn]

Since peacegirl raised superdeterminism, how about this idea: Our physical body is a quantum/classical machine operated by free-will decisions of quantum fields. More, the authors (one of whom is the inventor of the microprocessor) say that this idea is testable. If correct, we have libertarian free will.

The funny part is, I actually described a system that is super-deterministic.

 

[peacegirl]

Your presentation failed to account for the terms and conditions of determinism

Yet again no, it doesn't. You don't even have the capacity to identify a deterministic system. Please leave this conversation now. You have deposed yourself almost as thoroughly as peacegirl.

Do not listen to Jaryn DBT. If you leave, I'll have to leave too. It's getting way too derisive for me to deal with alone!

 

[peacegirl]

Since peacegirl raised superdeterminism, how about this idea: Our physical body is a quantum/classical machine operated by free-will decisions of quantum fields. More, the authors (one of whom is the inventor of the microprocessor) say that this idea is testable. If correct, we have libertarian free will.

Impossible to operate by free will decisions when there is no free will to operate from. Totally circular.

 

[peacegirl]

So peacegirl gets on her Google to find something about quantum mechanics and free will. How nice.

Putting aside, of course, the fact that no one here is invoking QM to defend compatibilism. I raised it only to question the very first premise of the entire discussion — the premise being that the world is in fact deterministic. What if it isn’t? But no, it appears peacegirl remains intent on misrepresenting what others say.

I thought that in the many worlds logic, a different response could be made using the same exact antecedents, meaning that one choice is not fully determined. That is in conflict with the definition of determinism that compatibilists use. Can't you see the contradiction?

The central notion in the semantic or model theoretic exploration of modal logic. A possible world is here considered to be a complete state of affairs, or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth-value. A proposition p is necessary (·p) if it is true at all possible worlds, possible (◊p) if it is true at some, and impossible if it is true at none. Various relations can be defined over possible worlds. For example, to model questions arising over the iteration of modal operators, such as whether ·p implies ··p, Kripke defined an accessibility relation over worlds, enabling him to transform this question into the issue of whether, if a proposition is true at all worlds accessible from this, then it is true at all worlds accessible from all worlds accessible from this. To give a theory of counterfactuals, David Lewis used a similarity relationship, so a counterfactual conditional ‘If p had been true, q would have been’ can be regarded as true if it is true at all of the most similar worlds to ours in which p is true.

Although the utility of possible worlds models in exploring modal logic is beyond doubt, the philosophical propriety of the notion has been intensively debated, with the same kinds of position emerging as in the philosophy of mathematics: Platonism, alleging their reality (see modal realism), forms of constructivism, alleging that we create them, and formalism, regarding the notation as a useful tool for logic but nothing more.

possible worlds

"possible worlds" published on by null.

www.oxfordreference.com

That said, superdeterminism is not quantum mechanics — as the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who supports superdeterminism, has argued, it is a replacement for QM.

Almost no physicist takes superdeterminism seriously. First, it is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable. But more outlandishly, it claims that every experiment we conduct will show QM to be indeterministic when it fact it is not. As many have pointed out, this would throw into question the value of science itself. Superdeterminism is kind of the scientific equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

The fantasy behind Sabine Hossenfelder’s superdeterminism

In which the author likens belief in it to belief that an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster pushes planets in their orbits.

I'm sure for everybody who rejects Hossenfelder's theory as to why QM follows deterministic laws, there will be those who find her theory reasonable.

 

[Jarhyn]

Since peacegirl raised superdeterminism, how about this idea: Our physical body is a quantum/classical machine operated by free-will decisions of quantum fields. More, the authors (one of whom is the inventor of the microprocessor) say that this idea is testable. If correct, we have libertarian free will.

The funny part is, I actually described a system that is super-deterministic.

I repeat for peacegirl, that I escribed a fully determined relativistic system which I'm pretty sure is capable of being, if not already, "super-deterministic".

"Possibility" reduces to "location" when taking a block view, and block views necessarily require these to be placed at locations.