A simple explanation of free will.

[Togo]

Yeah, Penrose. I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea at this point, even though it is probably quite likely that factors such as micro tubules play a role in brain function.

Keep in mind that vibrating micro tubules are not an instance of quantum indeterminism, free will, or consciousness.

They've been linked to consciousness, or rather to the medical state of unconsciousness, which is otherwise quite hard to explain . I've not seen anything more than speculation on that point though.

 

[ryan]

Here is a neutral article published in 2013 on "quantum consciousness", http://www.livescience.com/37807-brain-is-not-quantum-computer.html .

Here is an updated article published in 2014, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm .

Keep in mind that vibrating micro tubules are not an instance of quantum indeterminism ...

Wait; how do you know this? This would be a huge blow to this part of my argument.

It is the brain as a whole that is the agent of consciousness formation as a representation of sensory inputs and memory integration (recognition).

Without the functioning parts working in concert, including micro tubules....which probably respond to the activity of larger scale activity and not the driver of conscious activity, there is no evidence for conscious brain activity.

For example:

The activation of a neuronal assembly is necessary to make the encoded content consciously accessible. This activation is considered to be initiated by external stimuli. Unless the assembly is activated, its content remains unconscious, unaccessed memory. According to Umezawa, coherent neuronal assemblies correlated to such memory states are regarded as vacuum states; their activation leads to excited states with a finite lifetime and enables a conscious recollection of the content encoded in the vacuum (ground) state. The stability of such states and the role of external stimuli have been investigated in detail by Stuart et al. (1978, 1979).

I still agree that much of our behavior is "hardwired" into us. We could still have free choices within certain constraints.

From your link:
''The idea that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical phenomena in the brain is intriguing, yet lacks evidence, scientists say.''

That was the reason why I posted the second link with that link. The evidence came the next year in the second link I provided.

 

[DBT]

Keep in mind that vibrating micro tubules are not an instance of quantum indeterminism ...

Wait; how do you know this? This would be a huge blow to this part of my argument.

Nobody actually knows the precise roles of micro tubules, but vibrating microtubules alone do not generate thought and experience, for that, as I've pointed out numerous times, you need the total architecture of a functional brain.

We know what happens when synaptic connectivity fails, memory loss, inability to recognize, sensory inputs not represented in coherent form, etc, etc....which is at far higher scale than microtubules, which may still be functioning.

''While mainstream theories assume that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases,[2][3] Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on the microtubules of the cells, a process significantly amplified in the neurons.[4] The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout microtubule lattices. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or (most favorably) magnetic, due to electron spin — and possibly also due to nuclear spins (which can remain isolated for longer periods of time), and which occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[1][5] The orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate the state reduction of the qubits by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[6] The latter is based on Penrose's objective collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the space-time curvature of these states in the fine scale structure of the universe.[7]'' - Wiki.

I still agree that much of our behavior is "hardwired" into us. We could still have free choices within certain constraints.

There is no separation. All decisions are made by the activity of cells and their wiring. The brain is an information processor, it cannot function by some magical means. It's all neural processing, wiring and information interaction.

That was the reason why I posted the second link with that link. The evidence came the next year in the second link I provided.

There is no proof, the idea of quantum consciousness is highly speculative. You mistake the role and function of deep level structures such as microtubules for the agency of consciousness. Micro tubules and their quantum composition and state alone do not account for consciousness, even though there are some who are pushing the idea, for whatever reason.

 

[ryan]

Wait; how do you know this? This would be a huge blow to this part of my argument.

Nobody actually knows the precise roles of micro tubules, but vibrating microtubules alone do not generate thought and experience, for that, as I've pointed out numerous times, you need the total architecture of a functional brain.

We know what happens when synaptic connectivity fails, memory loss, inability to recognize, sensory inputs not represented in coherent form, etc, etc....which is at far higher scale than microtubules, which may still be functioning.

Yes, I know this. That is why I keep saying that we are mostly hardwired. Nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified.

I still agree that much of our behavior is "hardwired" into us. We could still have free choices within certain constraints.

There is no separation. All decisions are made by the activity of cells and their wiring. The brain is an information processor, it cannot function by some magical means. It's all neural processing, wiring and information interaction.

Much of neurology is still clouded in mystery.

A neuroscientist named David Eagleman wrote an article for Discover magazine, here is an example of what I keep reading everywhere, "Although traveling bursts of voltage can carry signals across the brain quickly, those electrical spikes may not be the only—or even the main—way that information is carried in nervous systems." from http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries .

Also, please see, http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/newsandevents/research/article.aspx?id=6645 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience .

That was the reason why I posted the second link with that link. The evidence came the next year in the second link I provided.

There is no proof, the idea of quantum consciousness is highly speculative.

I know, and I certainly did not say that this is proof.

You mistake the role and function of deep level structures such as microtubules for the agency of consciousness. Micro tubules and their quantum composition and state alone do not account for consciousness, ...

I also have never said that microtubules alone account for the consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Nobody actually knows the precise roles of micro tubules, but vibrating microtubules alone do not generate thought and experience, for that, as I've pointed out numerous times, you need the total architecture of a functional brain.

We know what happens when synaptic connectivity fails, memory loss, inability to recognize, sensory inputs not represented in coherent form, etc, etc....which is at far higher scale than microtubules, which may still be functioning.

Yes, I know this. That is why I keep saying that we are mostly hardwired. Nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified.

I still agree that much of our behavior is "hardwired" into us. We could still have free choices within certain constraints.

There is no separation. All decisions are made by the activity of cells and their wiring. The brain is an information processor, it cannot function by some magical means. It's all neural processing, wiring and information interaction.

Much of neurology is still clouded in mystery.

A neuroscientist named David Eagleman wrote an article for Discover magazine, here is an example of what I keep reading everywhere, "Although traveling bursts of voltage can carry signals across the brain quickly, those electrical spikes may not be the only—or even the main—way that information is carried in nervous systems." from http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries .

Also, please see, http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/newsandevents/research/article.aspx?id=6645 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience .

That was the reason why I posted the second link with that link. The evidence came the next year in the second link I provided.

There is no proof, the idea of quantum consciousness is highly speculative.

I know, and I certainly did not say that this is proof.

You mistake the role and function of deep level structures such as microtubules for the agency of consciousness. Micro tubules and their quantum composition and state alone do not account for consciousness, ...

I also have never said that microtubules alone account for the consciousness.

OK, so it comes down to your contention that ''we are mostly hardwired'' but not totally hardwired - the problem being, the brain is all 'wiring' and the consciousness and self being activity of wiring. This is something you do not choose, you do not choose the state and activity of the brain, the very agency that shapes and forms and generates you, your experiences, your thoughts and your decisions, the whole pack and caboodle being a property of unchosen brain state and electrochemical activity.

When you say, ''nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified'' it implies that quantum particle state is somehow the regulator that enables rational 'free' decisions to be made....when quantum particle state is not the decision maker or regulator and random elements within information processing activity are not likely to aid decision making, which is related to the objects and events of the world, and not random vibrations or quantum particle/wave states.

 

[ryan]

Yes, I know this. That is why I keep saying that we are mostly hardwired. Nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified.

I still agree that much of our behavior is "hardwired" into us. We could still have free choices within certain constraints.

There is no separation. All decisions are made by the activity of cells and their wiring. The brain is an information processor, it cannot function by some magical means. It's all neural processing, wiring and information interaction.

Much of neurology is still clouded in mystery.

A neuroscientist named David Eagleman wrote an article for Discover magazine, here is an example of what I keep reading everywhere, "Although traveling bursts of voltage can carry signals across the brain quickly, those electrical spikes may not be the only—or even the main—way that information is carried in nervous systems." from http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries .

Also, please see, http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/newsandevents/research/article.aspx?id=6645 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience .

That was the reason why I posted the second link with that link. The evidence came the next year in the second link I provided.

There is no proof, the idea of quantum consciousness is highly speculative.

I know, and I certainly did not say that this is proof.

You mistake the role and function of deep level structures such as microtubules for the agency of consciousness. Micro tubules and their quantum composition and state alone do not account for consciousness, ...

I also have never said that microtubules alone account for the consciousness.

OK, so it comes down to your contention that ''we are mostly hardwired'' but not totally hardwired - the problem being, the brain is all 'wiring' and the consciousness and self being activity of wiring. This is something you do not choose, you do not choose the state and activity of the brain, the very agency that shapes and forms and generates you, your experiences, your thoughts and your decisions, the whole pack and caboodle being a property of unchosen brain state and electrochemical activity.

Will you please read what a neuroscientist named David Eagleman wrote in an article for Discover magazine, "Although traveling bursts of voltage can carry signals across the brain quickly, those electrical spikes may not be the only—or even the main—way that information is carried in nervous systems." from http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries .

There is just too much unknown about neuroscience to be certain of anything about it.

When you say, ''nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified'' it implies that quantum particle state is somehow the regulator that enables rational 'free' decisions to be made....when quantum particle state is not the decision maker or regulator and random elements within information processing activity are not likely to aid decision making, which is related to the objects and events of the world, and not random vibrations or quantum particle/wave states.

There is too much that they don't know; see http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/newsandevents/research/article.aspx?id=6645 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience .

 

[DBT]

Yes, I know this. That is why I keep saying that we are mostly hardwired. Nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified.

I still agree that much of our behavior is "hardwired" into us. We could still have free choices within certain constraints.

There is no separation. All decisions are made by the activity of cells and their wiring. The brain is an information processor, it cannot function by some magical means. It's all neural processing, wiring and information interaction.

Much of neurology is still clouded in mystery.

A neuroscientist named David Eagleman wrote an article for Discover magazine, here is an example of what I keep reading everywhere, "Although traveling bursts of voltage can carry signals across the brain quickly, those electrical spikes may not be the only—or even the main—way that information is carried in nervous systems." from http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries .

Also, please see, http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/newsandevents/research/article.aspx?id=6645 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience .

That was the reason why I posted the second link with that link. The evidence came the next year in the second link I provided.

There is no proof, the idea of quantum consciousness is highly speculative.

I know, and I certainly did not say that this is proof.

You mistake the role and function of deep level structures such as microtubules for the agency of consciousness. Micro tubules and their quantum composition and state alone do not account for consciousness, ...

I also have never said that microtubules alone account for the consciousness.

OK, so it comes down to your contention that ''we are mostly hardwired'' but not totally hardwired - the problem being, the brain is all 'wiring' and the consciousness and self being activity of wiring. This is something you do not choose, you do not choose the state and activity of the brain, the very agency that shapes and forms and generates you, your experiences, your thoughts and your decisions, the whole pack and caboodle being a property of unchosen brain state and electrochemical activity.

Will you please read what a neuroscientist named David Eagleman wrote in an article for Discover magazine, "Although traveling bursts of voltage can carry signals across the brain quickly, those electrical spikes may not be the only—or even the main—way that information is carried in nervous systems." from http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries .

There is just too much unknown about neuroscience to be certain of anything about it.

When you say, ''nobody knows how much influence QM has on the consciousness, so I still don't see how your certainty is justified'' it implies that quantum particle state is somehow the regulator that enables rational 'free' decisions to be made....when quantum particle state is not the decision maker or regulator and random elements within information processing activity are not likely to aid decision making, which is related to the objects and events of the world, and not random vibrations or quantum particle/wave states.

There is too much that they don't know; see http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/newsandevents/research/article.aspx?id=6645 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience .

The argument from incomplete understanding doesn't help to establish your case for free will based on random quantum fluctuations.

We do understand the basics, that a brain gathers information from the external world through its senses (that being the structure and function of eyes, ears, etc, and their related neural structures), storing information, an interpretation of wavelength to colours, shapes to objects and relationships - pattern recognition - with which it forms an internal model of its inputs, information base, memory, in the form of a subjective or virtual representation of the world, its objects, events and relationships....now obviously, we do not understand precisely how a brain achieves virtual representation of information, consciousness, but it is clear that it does.

We know, due to a large body of evidence, that damage to the macro scale structures or electro/chemical imbalances, that this alters consciousness in quite specific ways, or disintegrates it altogether, that it is these structures and processes that play a major role in consciousness formation. And of course the emerging inquiry into the deeper foundations in the function of quantum states.

Now, as information about the external world is not random (information not being random) and memory not being random..random quantum effects cannot logically be an aid to rational information processing and decision making.
Hoe
So I ask you, ryan, what benefit is to be gained by random fluctuations within what is essentially an information processing system?

How do random fluctuation help your brain to make rational decisions?

 

[fromderinside]

Which is worst? Water circling a drain, rats running in circles in a Skinner box, or people repeating themselves on a free will thread?

 

[ryan]

The argument from incomplete understanding doesn't help to establish your case for free will based on random quantum fluctuations.

My case is only that QM might play a role in the decision making process. From what I'm reading, there is much to understand and to discover with neurological processes.

We know, due to a large body of evidence, that damage to the macro scale structures or electro/chemical imbalances, that this alters consciousness in quite specific ways, or disintegrates it altogether, that it is these structures and processes that play a major role in consciousness formation. And of course the emerging inquiry into the deeper foundations in the function of quantum states.

Now, as information about the external world is not random (information not being random) and memory not being random..random quantum effects cannot logically be an aid to rational information processing and decision making.

They don't even know how we retrieve memories, so how can you rule out all QM possibilities?

So I ask you, ryan, what benefit is to be gained by random fluctuations within what is essentially an information processing system?

First of all, quantum processes can process information too. Second, the gap between "essentially" and "all" is small but it is all that would make sense to have; it seems like we only make conscious decisions a small fraction of the time.

 

[bilby]

There might be a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

The claim that something 'might' be is no claim at all, and you are wasting your time and ours with such speculative nonsense.

Your 'might' can join all the other 'mights' in the big bin of non-ideas that are masquerading as ideas.

 

[apeman]

You make an assumption that "Your, and mine, mind is part of the world...". That you are observing the world in no way implies that you are (only) a part of it and that all your thoughts are governed by the world as it is.

If my thoughts are caused solely by the world around me, and not also by my opinions , then my thoughts would necessarily only be a truthful reflection of what I actually sensed...rather than also being based on my beliefs about the world. So, for instance, an ant only reflects the reality around it insofar as it is unable to have its own beliefs...therefore an ant doesn't have free will.

This is so fucked up that I dont where to start.

The brain is an information machine that creates a model of the world from the input signals coming from the senses and from hardwired assumptions.
These functions are the result of evolution in that agents that is capable of createing more useful models also have higher chance of getting surviving descendants.

Thus the coupling between your thoughts about the world and the real world is by evolution.

Thus there is nothing that says that our mind have acorrdct model of reality, just a useful one.

I think your assumptions are wrong.

Imagination doesn't necessarily increase the chances of the survival of imaginative species...we can even imagine how to wipe out our particular species. The most advanced societies also tend to have the lowest birthrates.Also "creates a model" implies that we have a degree of separateness from the world around us.

Imagination leads to knowledge which in turn can be used to discard innate biases ("hardwired assumptions").

Evolution is an over-rated theory imo, for instance, we humans can use our imaginations in order to act in a non-evolutionary way...for instance by preserving the life of disabled people. The fact that we can act in a non-evolutionary way is actually further proof that we are free (to a degree) from the world around us.

 

[apeman]

Not true. The universe at large works on well defined rules and principles, our conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear, general relativity and of course quantum...which has not been reconciled with GR.

Your will or my will cannot alter the rules of physics through an act of willpower, we can alter, reconstruct, modify and separate existing elements though the motor actions of out bodies and extensions, our tools.

We invent things that take control ( to a degree) of reality all the time.

You are confusing 'reality' - matter/energy, the laws and principles of physics, QM included, and the objects and events of the world that we interact with, and are ourselves composed of.

We can modify the latter, but we cannot change the rules and principles of 'reality' - we can work with these rules and principle, but not simply through an act of will.

We know that will can impose order ...the world is order ...the world is willed. That doesn't mean that the world exists because I will it though!

You were saying and implying far more than that in previous remarks:

I'm making the point that there may not be any such thing as mind independent material.

Yes, I'm implying that the universe is the product of a mind.

I've already pointed out that our wills are limited by the world around us (the laws of nature). The fact that we need will in order to utilise these laws of nature to create new things (within the laws of nature) implies that the laws of nature themselves are also willed...order requires will...and free-will requires order.

The "principles of reality" do not necessarily require the theory of mind independence. It is a very simple concept that if the world is mind dependent it is not necessarily dependent on my ( or your) mind. The universe could well exist as an idea rather than a non-idea (physical )...science is not equipped to know the difference between the two theories.

 

[apeman]

Yes, I'm implying that the universe is the product of a mind.

I'd go woo, but, everybody knows ancient philosophers presumed that without a mind to perceive and organize there would be no world observed.

Maybe there wouldn't be any world at all without mind?

 

[Juma]

This is so fucked up that I dont where to start.

The brain is an information machine that creates a model of the world from the input signals coming from the senses and from hardwired assumptions.
These functions are the result of evolution in that agents that is capable of createing more useful models also have higher chance of getting surviving descendants.

Thus the coupling between your thoughts about the world and the real world is by evolution.

Thus there is nothing that says that our mind have acorrdct model of reality, just a useful one.

I think your assumptions are wrong.

Imagination doesn't necessarily increase the chances of the survival of imaginative species...we can even imagine how to wipe out our particular species. The most advanced societies also tend to have the lowest birthrates.Also "creates a model" implies that we have a degree of separateness from the world around us.

Imagination leads to knowledge which in turn can be used to discard innate biases ("hardwired assumptions").

Evolution is an over-rated theory imo, for instance, we humans can use our imaginations in order to act in a non-evolutionary way...for instance by preserving the life of disabled people. The fact that we can act in a non-evolutionary way is actually further proof that we are free (to a degree) from the world around us.

And i thought ryan was clueless... :-o

 

[ryan]

There might be a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

Nope, it is much stronger than that. We now know that QM exists in living things and probably even the brain. We know QM dominates very small scales. And we don't know the details on much of the neurological processes. This is enough to argue against the certainty that our decision making process is 100% classical mechanics.

The claim that something 'might' be is no claim at all, and you are wasting your time and ours with such speculative nonsense.

You're forgetting that my argument is to show that DBT's certainty is unjustified.

 

[rousseau]

This thread is now almost 300 posts long.

I guess that simple explanation wasn't so simple.

 

[DBT]

You're forgetting that my argument is to show that DBT's certainty is unjustified.

Now all you need is an actual argument.

 

[DBT]

Not true. The universe at large works on well defined rules and principles, our conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear, general relativity and of course quantum...which has not been reconciled with GR.

Your will or my will cannot alter the rules of physics through an act of willpower, we can alter, reconstruct, modify and separate existing elements though the motor actions of out bodies and extensions, our tools.



You are confusing 'reality' - matter/energy, the laws and principles of physics, QM included, and the objects and events of the world that we interact with, and are ourselves composed of.

We can modify the latter, but we cannot change the rules and principles of 'reality' - we can work with these rules and principle, but not simply through an act of will.

We know that will can impose order ...the world is order ...the world is willed. That doesn't mean that the world exists because I will it though!

You were saying and implying far more than that in previous remarks:

I'm making the point that there may not be any such thing as mind independent material.

Yes, I'm implying that the universe is the product of a mind.

I've already pointed out that our wills are limited by the world around us (the laws of nature). The fact that we need will in order to utilise these laws of nature to create new things (within the laws of nature) implies that the laws of nature themselves are also willed...order requires will...and free-will requires order.

The "principles of reality" do not necessarily require the theory of mind independence. It is a very simple concept that if the world is mind dependent it is not necessarily dependent on my ( or your) mind. The universe could well exist as an idea rather than a non-idea (physical )...science is not equipped to know the difference between the two theories.

Will is not only limited by the laws of nature - which contradicts your implication that the laws of nature/the physical world is a product of consciousness/will - but limited, shaped and formed and generated by brain condition...which is no more subject to wishes and desires or conscious will than is the physical state of the Universe and its laws. Hence we have rational will, we have irrational will...but 'free' will is a misnomer. The reason why the term is irrelevant is because will is a product of brain condition and not its regulator.

- - - Updated - - -

There might be a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

The claim that something 'might' be is no claim at all, and you are wasting your time and ours with such speculative nonsense.

Your 'might' can join all the other 'mights' in the big bin of non-ideas that are masquerading as ideas.

Yes, indeed.

 

[ryan]

You're forgetting that my argument is to show that DBT's certainty is unjustified.

Now all you need is an actual argument.

No, you need an argument that completely rules out QM from the decision making process. It is your certainty about an uncertain subject that I argue against.

"Quantum Cognition" is a serious and legitimate area of interest in academia.

Here is a quote from, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058709 ,

What type of probability theory best describes the way humans make judgments under uncertainty and decisions under conflict? Although rational models of cognition have become prominent and have achieved much success, they adhere to the laws of classical probability theory despite the fact that human reasoning does not always conform to these laws. For this reason we have seen the recent emergence of models based on an alternative probabilistic framework drawn from quantum theory. These quantum models show promise in addressing cognitive phenomena that have proven recalcitrant to modeling by means of classical probability theory. This review compares and contrasts probabilistic models based on Bayesian or classical versus quantum principles, and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

.

From http://phys.org/news/2014-03-quantum-theory-cognition-memories.html read,

In their study, Yearsley and Emmanuel M. Pothos, also at City University London, have proposed that quantum probability theory may be used to assign probabilities to how precisely our thoughts, decisions, feelings, memories, and other cognitive variables can be recalled and defined over time.

.

Are you still certain that QM has no effect on decision making?

 

[bilby]

Nope, it is much stronger than that. We now know that QM exists in living things and probably even the brain. We know QM dominates very small scales. And we don't know the details on much of the neurological processes. This is enough to argue against the certainty that our decision making process is 100% classical mechanics.

The claim that something 'might' be is no claim at all, and you are wasting your time and ours with such speculative nonsense.

You're forgetting that my argument is to show that DBT's certainty is unjustified.

Then you should try to show that.

We know that teapots exist in the solar system. Absolute certainty that one is not currently orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter is unjustified.

It's nevertheless perfectly reasonable to rule out the possibility in the absence of evidence to support the notion. Certainty is not possible. But that's true of almost all wildly speculative claims, and amounts to nothing.

When the best you can say for your notion is that it cannot be absolutely proven to be false, you've got nothing.