morpher001
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,067
Is it not the case that the uncertainty principle only invalidates determinism as it applies on a quantum scale though?
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Evolution
- Thread starter Portillo
- Start date
Is it not the case that the uncertainty principle only invalidates determinism as it applies on a quantum scale though?
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
I can't really speak against non-secular determinism. But as far as secular determinism goes though things are going to effect the outcome of a situation like serotonin, alcohol ect. on a quantum level you cannot account nor predict where every molecule and energy is. Thus adding to the randomness of each decision we make. I.E. "free will"
CrackAndScrabble
Bluelighter
determinism became a false notion when the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was accepted.
Sometimes I like to think that it was just a cop out because we as humans do not have the technology/brainpower to understand/calculate/formulate proper equations for it. But then I question why I continue living ad return to indeterminanism
I'm a lil gone right now to respond to this but I will :D
ninjadanslarbretabar, i'm starting to see that you and I more or less lie on the same side. I'm glad you really fleshed out the points of your perspective. This is turning into a nice thread
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
the role of QM on free will was elucidated by Conway and Kochen: if the outcomes of measurements are not predetermined, then neither is our choice about our measurement basis. its kind of an abuse of the word free will though, as indeterminism isn't the same as free will.
when i think of determinism, its in terms of time evolution, i.e. whether the laws governing a system uniquely predict the outcome. the uncertainty principle is just a mathematical fact about non commuting operators. to calculate time evolution, you need to select a basis, position or momentum (or energy, or whatever you're interested in), its not possible to try to evolve in both simultaneously, its possible to switch between the two via the fourier transform. so when calculating time evolution, and therefore to my mind assessing whether a theory is deterministic, the uncertainty principle isn't relevant- i interpret the philosophical aspects of the uncertainty principle as being more about ontology, what objects are, rather than how they behave. in that sense, its about whether properties are determined, but we appear to be talking about the time evolution version of determinism here.
the rules of QM are deterministic, there are deterministic intepretations of the 'collapse of the wavefunction.' it highlights the possibility that nature is indeterministic, but it does not dictate that this is the case. there is a truly indeterministic physical theory: statistical mechanics.
when i think of determinism, its in terms of time evolution, i.e. whether the laws governing a system uniquely predict the outcome. the uncertainty principle is just a mathematical fact about non commuting operators. to calculate time evolution, you need to select a basis, position or momentum (or energy, or whatever you're interested in), its not possible to try to evolve in both simultaneously, its possible to switch between the two via the fourier transform. so when calculating time evolution, and therefore to my mind assessing whether a theory is deterministic, the uncertainty principle isn't relevant- i interpret the philosophical aspects of the uncertainty principle as being more about ontology, what objects are, rather than how they behave. in that sense, its about whether properties are determined, but we appear to be talking about the time evolution version of determinism here.
the rules of QM are deterministic, there are deterministic intepretations of the 'collapse of the wavefunction.' it highlights the possibility that nature is indeterministic, but it does not dictate that this is the case. there is a truly indeterministic physical theory: statistical mechanics.
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
Yeah.. about that... I used to want to be a theoretical physicist, then I decided I'd rather enjoy my life.
Many leading scientists believe that evolution is purposeless and unguided. Dobzhansky, Simpson, Huxley, Mayr, Gould, Futuyma, Sagan, Dawkins, Provine etc, believe that evolution is a purposeless, unguided and undirected process.
CrackAndScrabble
Bluelighter
Great biologists don't necessarily make great philosophers.
nAON
Bluelight Crew
Philosophy and biology shouldn't mix in the first place.
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
oil and kool-aid.
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
Lets throw out the scientific method while were at this purifying philosophy from biology/science. And lets start injecting babies with horse sperm too. who knows it might cure cancer.
bioethics is beside the point.
morpher001
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,067
Bioethics is the result of the two disciplines duking it out. Which is both the point and beside it.
the notion that they should remain separate is in view of biologists studying biology and then commenting on theology when they can't find evidence of it in BIOLOGY.
bioethics is besides the point, unless theologians chime in with their beliefs (which they should not).
bioethics is besides the point, unless theologians chime in with their beliefs (which they should not).
I think its impossible to keep biology and philosophy apart. Scientists are always going to be interested in the big questions of life. No scientist is going to say Im a biologist so I wont attempt to answer those questions.