“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[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.

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.

A block view of the universe is just another unproven theory. Nothing that follows proves that past, present, and future are places that can be located. Only the present exists in my view. I know we have a completely different viewpoint when it comes to determinism, free will, and ultimate responsibility. More importantly, the implications of these positions will either take us down a dark road or a road of peace. That's why the knowledge I am sharing matters. It's not just an intellectual game of who outsmarts the other. It has real world consequences, especially when it comes down to changes in human conduct that benefit us all.

 

[steve_bank]

QM is a set of equations and models that are used in everyday technology. It is tried tried and true now for a very long time, there is no question that the theories work when applied to physical reality.

Design of transistors, integrated circuitous, and lasers.

QM is some areas is common knowledge. The net abounds with information and videos.

QM does not say anything about free will. Speculation on what experiments and measurements in QM may mean on the nature of reality began at the start. Thus the abidance of speculation on the net and in books. A popular subject.



If free will is reduced to a neural model that goes down to the atomic level then QM would play a direct role.

A quantum scale model of the inverse to prove or disprove determinism is impossible.


From a QM view our macro Newtonian everyday reality is a special case of quantum effects. Large numbers of particles like a baseball or planet mask the quantum states and effects.

Imagine a tank of gas with a lot of particles, and a pressure sensor on a wall of the tank. At high pressure, lots of parcels, there are large numbers of particles hitting the surface of the sensor. Like heavy rain on on the roof of a car.

The pressure is a macro scale measurement, we treat it like a continuations variable because the granularity is well below measurement ability. But each particle in the tank is governed by QM.

Reduce number of particles and pressure goes down, At some point the pressure sensor no longer works. In the extreme you would have one gas particle bouncing around the tank, the opposite of macro scale Newtonian.

Same with electrical current, An ordinary meter doe not respond to electrons in small numbers, so we call the average number of electrons a continuous current, even though it is is discrete and quantize d.

So, quantum effects affect us all the time, but they are so small at our scale we do not normally notice it.

In modern parlance, the universe is digitized,

 

[steve_bank]

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!

There are no restrictions here on what you think and say.

The general idea on the forum is if you post an idea you may be asked to defend it. As you have been asked to defend your posts.

Everyone here has the leeway to freely speculate, as you have the right to do so.

 

[peacegirl]

QM is a set of equations and models that are used in everyday technology. It is tried tried and true now for a very long time, there is no question that the theories work when applied to physical reality.

Design of transistors, integrated circuitous, and lasers.

QM is some areas is common knowledge. The net abounds with information and videos.

QM does not say anything about free will. Speculation on what experiments and measurements in QM may mean on the nature of reality began at the start. Thus the abidance of speculation on the net and in books. A popular subject.



If free will is reduced to a neural model that goes down to the atomic level then QM would play a direct role.

A quantum scale model of the inverse to prove or disprove determinism is impossible.


From a QM view our macro Newtonian everyday reality is a special case of quantum effects. Large numbers of particles like a baseball or planet mask the quantum states and effects.

Imagine a tank of gas with a lot of particles, and a pressure sensor on a wall of the tank. At high pressure, lots of parcels, there are large numbers of particles hitting the surface of the sensor. Like heavy rain on on the roof of a car.

The pressure is a macro scale measurement, we treat it like a continuations variable because the granularity is well below measurement ability. But each particle in the tank is governed by QM.

Reduce number of particles and pressure goes down, At some point the pressure sensor no longer works. In the extreme you would have one gas particle bouncing around the tank, the opposite of macro scale Newtonian.

Same with electrical current, An ordinary meter doe not respond to electrons in small numbers, so we call the average number of electrons a continuous current, even though it is is discrete and quantize d.

So, quantum effects affect us all the time, but they are so small at our scale we do not normally notice it.

In modern parlance, the universe is digitized,

I am not asking for a response. I don't like conversing with you, but I will respond if the post has something that prompts a response in me. You're right. Q.M. has nothing to do with human decision-making on a level that would change a person's choices, once they've been made. To say that the opposite of determinism is indeterminism, indicates that this indeterminism allows for the belief that a person could have done otherwise in some possible world. But no one can prove that we actually have the compatibilist free will that would allow for "could have done otherwise". It's contradictory to the compatibilist definition of determinism that they have agreed to. People can twist logic to make it all fit like a puzzle. The only problem is that logic is often unsound. Regardless of the many competing theories out there, there's only one right answer. Determinism wins overwhelmingly, but not the standard way it has been defined (i.e., hard determinism). This has caused such confusion and downright anger, that soft determinism was coined to defend against a determinism that takes away our very motivation to do anything if we don't get any credit. For who wants to feel they are meat puppets and given no credit for their accomplishments? They may even feel the belief in determinism is dangerous because if people stand by this position, they can easily excuse themselves for wrongdoing and just say, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free... and will not be held accountable. Is it any wonder people believe this is a useless debate since it won't change their reality in any substantial way? But they are incorrect.


.

 

[pood]

I am not asking for a response. I don't like conversing with you, but I will respond if the post has something that prompts a response in me. You're right. Q.M. has nothing to do with human decision-making on a level that would change a person's choices, once they've been made.


.

No one argues that anyone can change their choices after they have been made. What is being said is that the past choice was, what it was, but it COULD have been different.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not asking for a response. I don't like conversing with you, but I will respond if the post has something that prompts a response in me. You're right. Q.M. has nothing to do with human decision-making on a level that would change a person's choices, once they've been made.


.

No one argues that anyone can change their choices after they have been made. What is being said is that the past choice was, what it was, but it COULD have been different.

Could have been different under what circumstances? You cannot prove that the same person under the same exact conditions could have acted otherwise. You keep harping on this as though there is proof behind your logic. If there was another observable world where the laws of our nature worked differently, you might have a case. The rest is based on conjecture.

 

[pood]

I am not asking for a response. I don't like conversing with you, but I will respond if the post has something that prompts a response in me. You're right. Q.M. has nothing to do with human decision-making on a level that would change a person's choices, once they've been made.


.

No one argues that anyone can change their choices after they have been made. What is being said is that the past choice was, what it was, but it COULD have been different.

Could have been different under what circumstances? You cannot prove that the same person under the same exact conditions could have acted otherwise. You keep harping on this as though there is proof behind your logic. If there was another observable world where the laws of our nature worked differently, you might have a case. The rest is based on conjecture.

I already gave you the modal argument and the physical argument, in detail. I am not going to bother rehashing anything with you. You retain nothing, because absolutely nothing must stand in the way of Dear Daddy’s Book. And notice how you fail to apologize for stupidly misconstruing what I actually said, to instead falsely claim that I was saying people could change their choices AFTER they had been made. Obviously, I said nothing of the kind!

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl has no choice, she has to respond. It is her destiny.

I wonder if she believes in astrology.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not asking for a response. I don't like conversing with you, but I will respond if the post has something that prompts a response in me. You're right. Q.M. has nothing to do with human decision-making on a level that would change a person's choices, once they've been made.


.

No one argues that anyone can change their choices after they have been made. What is being said is that the past choice was, what it was, but it COULD have been different.

Could have been different under what circumstances? You cannot prove that the same person under the same exact conditions could have acted otherwise. You keep harping on this as though there is proof behind your logic. If there was another observable world where the laws of our nature worked differently, you might have a case. The rest is based on conjecture.

I already gave you the modal argument and the physical argument, in detail. I am not going to bother rehashing anything with you. You retain nothing, because absolutely nothing must stand in the way of Dear Daddy’s Book. And notice how you fail to apologize for stupidly misconstruing what I actually said, to instead falsely claim that I was saying people could change their choices AFTER they had been made. Obviously, I said nothing of the kind!

I understood what you said. The truth has nothing to do with dear daddy’s book, just the truth. I didn’t say that you said people could take back their choices, but didn’t you say that people could make a different choice on different timelines or whatever? It’s all speculation based on crazy ideas about block universes where future and past can be someone else’s present.

 

[steve_bank]

To me free will and making decisions are two different things.

Free will is a political and philosophical abstraction not subject to objective proof. Politically free will means government is not going to tell me what to do. Libertarians.

Decision making can be objectively tested.

I read a NASA human reliability study from the 60s. Astronauts were in top physical and mental condition. They were all educated. Most or all had militray pilot experience.

Astronautics were put in a capsule mock up with panels of switches and buttons. They learned a particular sequence of pushing buttons and thrown switches.

A percentage of the time they would make a mistake going by memory. We are not machines that will not always make the same decision given the same circumstances.

There is a TV series that runs periodically on aviation crashes. There are various causes. Sometimes an experienced pilot makes a choice inconsistent with established procedure resulting in a crash.

Anyone who has worked in a high stress environment knows stress without relief can affect decision making. It is biological. Stress increases stress hormones like adrenaline, the fight or flight mode.

There are stages of fight or flight. In a threatening situation in the last stage stress hormones override reason and logic areas in brain and you are fighting for your life. Kill or be killed. There is no choice, it is automatic.

In sexual foreplay and in the act there is a point where hormones take over and you can not pull back. No ‘free will’ and no choice.


Nothing controversial with this.

As to QM and free will – decision making I’d have to do some reading. I know there are logic thresholds and other parameters for neurons that affect when a neuron activates.

It is electrochemical. I am sure it has all been studied and modeled.

Free wiil versus determinism seems inadequate to describe how we really are. A simplistic dichotomy.

When you claim free will or determinism you have to precisely state the exact conditions that apply.

In common usage I think free will simply means the freedom to choose as you see fit.

 

[Elixir]

In common usage I think free will simply means the freedom to choose as you see fit.

If you want to think that, that’s your choice. Or at least, your right. Right?
The illusion of free will is still free will.

 

[pood]

In common usage I think free will simply means the freedom to choose as you see fit.

I think this should be </thread>

 

[DBT]

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.

Your presentation fails because it has little or no relationship to determinism as you, yourself define it. It's irrelevant because it doesn't relate to the objective world or its events, nor how the brain acquires and processes information and generates thought and response. Nor how compatibilists themselves define free will in relation to determinism as they define it.

In other words, your presentation is off with the Pixies.

 

[DBT]

The illusion of free will is formed from the illusion of choice, that we could have taken any one of a number of options as perceived in any given circumstance. Which, given determinism, cannot happen.

 

[bilby]

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.

The question of which of a set of competing hypotheses is true, or most plausible, is resolved by observations of reality. Not by a vote to determine how many people believe each hypothesis.

I don't care who, or how many, find a claim "reasonable". I care only whether reality concurs.

 

[bilby]

block view of the universe is just another unproven theory.

All theories are unproven.

 

[bilby]

Only the present exists in my view. I know we have a completely different viewpoint when it comes to determinism, free will, and ultimate responsibility.

Reality is agnostic regarding viewpoint; It remains real regardless of perspective, and for everyone, whether they like it or not.

 

[bilby]

More importantly, the implications of these positions will either take us down a dark road or a road of peace. That's why the knowledge I am sharing matters.

Argument from consequences is a logical fallacy.

And your hare-brained counterfactual speculations are not "knowledge".

 

[steve_bank]

You can go through 4 years of college and not take a philosophy class. If you do it could be just the the intro class to fulfill a humanities requirement.

In common terms freedom of choice means being able to choose a Ford over a Honda without direct coercion. Ignoring how we are influenced by culture and advertising.

In psychology, the branch that studies decision making is called cognitive psychology. It examines the mental processes involved in selecting a course of action from multiple options, considering factors like emotions, biases, and how individuals evaluate information to make choices.
Key points about decision making in psychology:

Focus on cognitive processes:
Cognitive psychology studies how people perceive, process, and interpret information, which is central to decision making.

Rational vs. emotional decision making:
Psychologists often distinguish between a rational system (based on logic and analysis) and an emotional system (driven by feelings and intuition) that influence choices.
Decision biases:
Cognitive biases, like anchoring bias or framing effect, are studied to understand how people might make suboptimal decisions.
Real-world applications:
Understanding decision making psychology can be applied to various fields like consumer behavior, organizational management, and public policy.

We are debating here on the edges of the topic.

Decision-Making

Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to guide us in the best course of action. Understanding strategies such as maximizing vs. satisficing, fast versus slow thinking, and...

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[steve_bank]

The illusion of free will is formed from the illusion of choice, that we could have taken any one of a number of options as perceived in any given circumstance. Which, given determinism, cannot happen.

Our pop culture itself is an illusion is it not? Another thread in metaphysics.

Religion to us atheists is an illusion.