• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Are we living according to a script?

The point though of there being Free Will? to myself is a solid experience that is to be learned from, which often is the only way. Freewill to me also is the way we are able to proceed with our personal darhmic path, to come to terms with any karmic issues, or create them.

My freewill practice could be anything, i will use alcohol as an example. If I were to take this into serious consideration; what do i want to drink, how much to consume, when, with who, where and what is my mode of transportation for the evening.? what is there i need to do tomorrow if anything?

As you can probably see and imagine, this freewill exercise as a night of drinking is dwindling away...

How free can your will be if you lose the capability to do so, by being irresponsible?

Because you still can. That is a big part of free will, the freedom to make a bad choice. People do it all the time. Since it is empirically observed that it is indeed possible, any theoretical construct saying it is not must be incorrect.

Some things are more fundamentally prohibited by reality and arguably thus deterministic. There is no way I could ever toss a baseball into orbit. Hence, any time I throw a baseball, it is deterministically not going to wind up in orbit. Even if I "will" it to do so.
 
I don't see how a basic principal on how to construct theories about objective reality (The question of if we are or are not fundamentally tied to a rigid deterministic "script" in life, and on what level is a question about the nature of reality) is dismissable because I am in my mid twenties.

When a theory or conjecture is shown by observation to make a statement that is wrong, it is ALWAYS the case that the theory is incorrect at least on some level.

b) dismissing someone because they are young (or a woman, or black, or not of royal lineage etc) is wrong. I'm not even talking on an ethical or moral level, I am talking on the level that the factual correctness or incorrectness of a statement they made about the physical world is not dependent or modified because of any factor other then if it does or or does not correspond the actual fact of the world. It's logical soundness follows the same rule, and the fact that the Unabomber was a horrible person on some levels does not make his contributions to mathematics any less correct.

If you wish to refute my statement about your alcohol use still being a choice you can/do make in more rigorous manner then my age, go for it.
 
Because you still can. That is a big part of free will, the freedom to make a bad choice. People do it all the time. Since it is empirically observed that it is indeed possible, any theoretical construct saying it is not must be incorrect.

sorry,
the highlighted potion had me think of that phrase.

yes we do have the freedom to make some bad choices, and the time allotted to learn from those decisions and results, in order to start off a bit more wise and motivated, to try and predict a script.
 
Yes, trying to construct a script to maximize your "odds" of getting a "good" outcome from the many probabilistic things that can happen is a good thing to do, and it still implies free will- you use the free will to write the script, and you use it to follow it-

re: the determinism you are talking about quantum level things: The "thing" exists in a superposition of ALL possible states, until they are observed (i.e. interact with another particle or field) which collapses the wave function. This is it. Finding it at Y place at some X time is probabilistic and the mathematical treatment of it is as probability density function or as a probability amplitude, which is a complex number. (as in the imaginary number joined with a real number way) in order to calculate for more then one dimension. It shows a random distribution of how these particles move, which agrees with the double slit experiment and related experiment. I can't really explain it very well cause it is not a simple subject, and I don't feel like hack together a 75 page file in LaTeX for the next 6 hours that 90% of people would stare blankly at anyways, But it's random, if it was not random, the world as we know would not work. Quantum electrodynamics has been tested to 7 places in one billion for accuracy. It has randomness, and it was critical to the engineers making the chips for your computer. If it was not random, the theory would suck and the engineers would not be able to make computers.
 
But it's random, if it was not random, the world as we know would not work. Quantum electrodynamics has been tested to 7 places in one billion for accuracy. It has randomness, and it was critical to the engineers making the chips for your computer. If it was not random, the theory would suck and the engineers would not be able to make computers.

No this is untrue. The scientists themselves recognize quantum mechanics is not a complete description of reality any more than classical theory is. They are all looking for a theory of everything.

For example classical theory cannot be predicted from quantum theory so that's a major deficit there, and visa versa.

Even though classical theory is an incomplete description of reality planes can still fly using that theory to predict its movement through the sky.

Simarly, Quantum mechanics need not be a complete description for computers based on it to work. Quantum mechanics nowhere posits randomness only claims that the data is unpredictable.
 
Random is defined as the exact same event could have more than one outcome. Remarkably that's the same definition of free will, that the exact same set of causal factors could result in a completely different outcome.

Randomness conflicts with causality and conflicts with free will. All three are in direct conflict with every other.

Since we cannot prove to tell the difference between someone with free will and someone without and their behavior would look exactly the same and our own behavior would appear and feel exactly the same there is no reason to create another entity, free will, to explain what can be explained by causality and subjective interpretation causing us to feel like we make choices. It's an extra entity we don't need to explain things, it's just we feel uncomfortable to think about what it means that we don't have it, so people believe in it without evidence or reason for the same reason they believe in god, fear.
 
"The non-randomness of quantum mechanics is the basis of quantum algorithms, and (in a less direct way) is why chemistry “works”."

"whether there is any way to know if some sequence of numbers are truly random or pseudo random. If not, then is there any proof that the randomness of QT is not pseudo randomness"


"But in any case, if there truly are events without explanation then we can never understand them, and they can pop up anywhere, so science fails and we might as well give up now. "
 
Since we cannot prove to tell the difference between someone with free will and someone without and their behavior would look exactly the same and our own behavior would appear and feel exactly the same there is no reason to create another entity, free will ... it's just we feel uncomfortable to think about what it means that we don't have it
Without free will by what power are we to resist creating free will as another ontological entity? What is the reason we "should not" create this additional ontological "operator" (free will) if, as is the belief of hard determinists and hard indeterminists, choosing reasons for or against creating it don't exist as alternative possibilities to be chosen? In what sense is it wrong to believe in free will if we cannot do otherwise? Without free will we either do or not at the behest of an impersonal flux of matter and energy. What is the meaning and motivational power of our "discomfort" in considering we do not have free will in choosing to believe it without actually having it? There is no normative realm without free will. Rational understanding and any meaningful action are impotent without free will, and free will cannot be understood rationally, as if it could it would mean it could be formally defined (made deterministic). It necessarily defies necessary derivation. It can only be pointed to conceptually through contradictions.There is only anything to be done if we have it, and nothing if we don't, and because we can't conceive of its nature all there is to do rationally is doubt it even as we assume it implicitly to give substance to our rational thought.

Free will isn't explanatory filler like the concept of god is often argued to be, it's what gives explanations and their comprehension any substance at all.
 
I don't think anything in life is pre-determined. Everything is in a state of constant flux based on the decisions we made/are making. Every little thing we do changes the future somehow.
 
Life is predictable, It's the same movie year in and year out. It's determined by nature, once you have lived long enough experiences endlessly repeat themselves.
 
Quantum mechanics need not be a complete description for computers based on it to work. Quantum mechanics nowhere posits randomness only claims that the data is unpredictable.

Have you ever so much as picked up an entry-level textbook on quantum theory?

Either way, you completely missed rangrz's point. Quantum theory ranks among the most well-tested and well-studied scientific theories in any discipline, better even than general relativity. People who successfully design anything based on a particular scientific theory's predictions go a long way in corroborating that theory simply by way of their success. If someone were to design a machine based upon the principles of classical Newtonian mechanics, you wouldn't doubt that this object was proof positive of the essential validity of Newton's theories on their own terms. No scientific theory thus far posited (perhaps excepting so-called String Field Theory) has reasonably claimed to be a veritable 'theory of everything,' probably because such a grandiose pronouncement arguably exceeds physical science's inherent epistemological limitations.

As far as quantum mechanics (an exceptionally solid body of scientific rigor) is concerned, the distribution of particles is indeed probabilistic prior to the particles' interaction with observable bodies, forces, etc.
 
Have you ever so much as picked up an entry-level textbook on quantum theory?

Either way, you completely missed rangrz's point. Quantum theory ranks among the most well-tested and well-studied scientific theories in any discipline, better even than general relativity. People who successfully design anything based on a particular scientific theory's predictions go a long way in corroborating that theory simply by way of their success. If someone were to design a machine based upon the principles of classical Newtonian mechanics, you wouldn't doubt that this object was proof positive of the essential validity of Newton's theories on their own terms. No scientific theory thus far posited (perhaps excepting so-called String Field Theory) has reasonably claimed to be a veritable 'theory of everything,' probably because such a grandiose pronouncement arguably exceeds physical science's inherent epistemological limitations.

As far as quantum mechanics (an exceptionally solid body of scientific rigor) is concerned, the distribution of particles is indeed probabilistic prior to the particles' interaction with observable bodies, forces, etc.

Only the classical theory positions of the particles are probabilistic, if you instead interpret quantum theory as that the waveform itself is real then quantum mechanics is entirely deterministic even more so than classical physics with no unpredictability or probability at all. It's only when quantum T attempts to deal with particles having a real classical position within time and space that no cause can be detected, which should be a clue that that interpretation of QT is incorrect while the other interpretation that it's the waveform itself is real rather than classical particles QT predictions become causal.



There is also another interesting interpretation close to a theory of everything which is that the universe is a hologram on the three dimensional surface of a higher dimensional bubble with particles being fully virtual from data within the bubble. This would mean our universe is both infinite and bounded as its three dimensional space is wrapped around a higher dimensional space and as it expands the expansion is time, this means the universe would still be causal but also non local.
 
Sigh. Let's try this again.

Straight from the Wikipedia article entitled quantum mechanics:

"The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function called the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle."

"Quantum mechanics is essential to understanding the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller. For example, if classical mechanics truly governed the workings of an atom, electrons would rapidly travel toward, and collide with, the nucleus, making stable atoms impossible. However, in the natural world electrons normally remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic, "smeared", probabilistic wave–particle wavefunction orbital path around (or through) the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism."
 
Are you saying that science creates the 'script' which makes people believe that they actually are 'living according to a script'?

And are you trying to show that the scientific 'script' is simply an unquestioned philosophy?...
("Quantum mechanics is essential to understanding the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller.")
...and that once this philosophy has been extended to it's logical conclusion it is made redundant...
("...defying classical electromagnetism.")
... and that this itself is the scientific myth of progress?

I agree entirely!

Mathematics is entirely to blame for this state of affairs.
 
"Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly contributing to the field, he did not accept many of the more "philosophical consequences and interpretations" of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality"

"Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and, consequently, that the present theory was incomplete"

"Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored for many years in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything"

"The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[40] This is not accomplished by introducing some "new axiom" to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary, by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet"

"While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit."

All of these quotes come from your own wiki link.

"Asserting that quantum mechanics is deterministic by treating the wave function itself as reality implies a single wave function for the entire universe, starting at the origin of the universe. Such a "wave function of everything" would carry the probabilities of not just the world we know, but every other possible world that could have evolved."


"The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory..........…
This theory is deterministic. Most (but not all) variants of this theory that support special relativity require a preferred frame. Variants which include spin and curved spaces are known. It can be modified to include quantum field theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequent wondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be eliminated."

"The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.[1][2] As pointed out by Raphael Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.
In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[4][5]
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.[6]"


All from Wikipedia.

We see that the Copenhagen interpretation claims QT is non causal that there are no causes in QT. It is one single interpretation of QT.

Other interpretations of QT are deterministic, even more deterministic than classical theory.

Hologram theory is that the variables are non local deterministic and that classical particles and physics is not real but just a description of behaviours rather that particles are actually virtual, holograms.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory of QT is deterministic.

Many worlds theory is deterministic.

Any non local interpretations of QT can be deterministic.

Any interpretations of QT can be deterministic if one treats classical particles as non-real but rather the waveform itself to be real.

As we can see therefore there is

1. Not just one single proven or consensus interpretation of QT but rather many interpretations that all fit QT data and experiments.

2. QT can be interpreted as deterministic.

I believe it is more rational to believe in cause and effect else why would anything happen?
 
In a separate matter from QT dealing with free will. If choices were free and therefore unpredictable they would appear on the face of it to be random.

Therefore when asked to choose a color out of a range of colors an individual choice would be unpredictable, appearing random to an outside observer, (but not to the chooser, it would appear as a choice), while from a sample of say a thousand the thousand choices would be according to the theoretical probability of choosing those colors at random.

In other words free will cannot be predicted and appears statistically random, well it should, it free will was real.

However it doesn't work out that way in real life. In fact any collection of and even individual choices appear in patterns and utterly non random but caused.

Example: religion.

Free will would say that any person should be randomly of any major religion as they CHOOSE THEIR RELIGION FREELY, however that's not what we see. In fact the biggest predictor of religion is the religion of ones parents. This distribution of so called free choice of religion is non random, does not follow the predictions of theoretical probability whatsoever, and is therefore disproof of free will/choice. We see this same distribution of so called free choices no matter what the choice is and the distribution is never random but heavily aligned with various causes. This shows it's most likely choice is not free but caused. Your thoughts themselves are caused and the choices issuing from your thoughts are caused.

There is neither randomness nor it's opposite free will in this causal universe. These concepts are mere useful adaptions that helped us to survive on the savanna by example making guesses on the probability of a lion being at the waterhole at a certain time even though it's unpredictable it's still real, even I observed there is either a lion or there is not a lion and what your trying to do is guess the answer. The probability is whether your answer is correct or not, not whether the lion is or isn't there. So the concept of probability is only in the mind, not something real.

Free will too is only in the mind so as to enable morality, evolved so we could cooperate as a group, cooperation requires responsibility on the individual and responsibility depends on fault on freely choosing else it can't be that person fault, and so free will (the concept anyway) is needed for morality and morality was needed for cooperation so those things evolved but were never real to start with.
 
Here is a quick disproof of randomness.

Imagine a supposedly random event, the throw of a die, or a quantum event, and there are two individuals. One performs the experiment and observes the results. The second is separate from the first and must guess or predict the probabilities of what the result is. So to the second individual the result is unpredictable and apparently random EVEN THOUGH THE EVENT HAS ALREADY OCCURED and even been observed.

WTF?

The second scientist can still use probability calculations either classical or QT to predict the results of the experiment even though the experiments result has already been determined, this should show that the results are not probabilities at all but caused and it only appears random.
 
@Limits

Are you okay?
Yes thank you.
When one remembers that 'science' is 'natural philosophy' - and that it was called such for most of its history - the philosophy of science and mathematics seems rather more important.
Mathematical certainty and philosophical uncertainty are directly related. The number one is proved by using the 'imaginary number' sqrt(-1). Mathematics is based upon a philosophy very similar (but fundamentally different in only one respect) to that of language based philosophy. This difference is the certainty of propositions. Perhaps this is too abstract for most, but it is certainly not an unknown or incoherent position.
The funny thing to me is that people would rather question their very existence, or the notion of free will, rather than realizing where these 'problems' arise from. It is not that nothing is fundamentally knowable, but that known scientific facts are reflections of the collective belief in mathematics which is fundamentally 'certain' - but proves itself in a way that would be categorically 'uncertain' in purely language based philosophy.

It may be abstract, and it certainly requires thought - but the idea of 'living life according to a script' is nonsensically abstract given the nature of the logic used by mathematics and science - the latter being converted from 'natural philosophy' to 'scientifically proven' as a result of this mathematical logic.
 
Last edited:
Top