Causality which is prohibited?

gentillabdulla

I want to set off a brain storm for all of us here.

Which is it that negates causality?
Is it time travel or is it free will?

I mean a paradox is created is it because the conscious object has free will and decides to change it or that it can time travel?

Lets say that a computer that can show what will happen next with 100% accuracy. This is because it creates an exact replica of our universe(if you don't count the difference in size) and can speed it up to a certain time.

Anyway let's say that an organism which is conscious sees itself die going to the bank the next day. So it decides no to go due to the conscious object having free will.

So it begs the question which negates causality free will, or time travel?

Improbable

Could such a computer exist? For it to predict the way that events are going to unfold, those events would already have to be predetermined, perhaps by the initial state of the universe etc. Otherwise, all that it would be able to do would be to try and calculate all of the possible futures, of which there would be an infinite amount.

If, as I interpret your question, the computer would be predicting future events 100% accurately (i.e. no error possible), then would that not eliminate the very concept of free will?

In any case, I think this is more of a philosophical issue than a physics one.

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Could such a computer exist? For it to predict the way that events are going to unfold, those events would already have to be predetermined, perhaps by the initial state of the universe etc. Otherwise, all that it would be able to do would be to try and calculate all of the possible futures, of which there would be an infinite amount.

If, as I interpret your question, the computer would be predicting future events 100% accurately (i.e. no error possible), then would that not eliminate the very concept of free will?

In any case, I think this is more of a philosophical issue than a physics one.

Yes but that is just about precognition. But if it could then someone if they had free will to disobey.

I think if such a computer would be created it would be useless due to information processing and such.

I think it might be but it is no more confusing than a question such as...
"Do you think that god is strong enough to make a stone that even HE can't even lift?"

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I think it might be but it is no more confusing than a question such as...
"Do you think that god is strong enough to make a stone that even HE can't even lift?"

Thats not confusing at all. Just a logical argument against any one being having the property of absolute omnipotence.

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Thats not confusing at all. It's just about the mutually exclusive traits of omniscience and omnipotence. You simply cannot be both.

But the question would mean that the being that is supposed to be all powerful and can do anything CAN'T make a stone that even HE can't lift.

Which is an oxymoron.

You are all powerful and can do anything but can't make a stone that even he can't lift.

Gurgle

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Lets say that a computer that can show what will happen next with 100% accuracy. This is because it creates an exact replica of our universe(if you don't count the difference in size) and can speed it up to a certain time.

Anyway let's say that an organism which is conscious sees itself die going to the bank the next day. So it decides no to go due to the conscious object having free will.

The computer would have to take into account the organism seeing itself die and so not going to the bank.....

raah!

Free will when looked at from a physical point of view is completely absurd. People are composed of particles of matter as are their brains. Particles are governed by physics and physics is deterministic. Therefore, free will cannot exist unless there are certain substances outside of the influence of physical forces, and that's not a very scientific idea.

gentillabdulla

Gurgle wrote: »

The computer would have to take into account the organism seeing itself die and so not going to the bank.....

How would the computer react to this happening?

Would it blow up?

Would it stop working?

It's basically creating a paradox.

But the real question is which one negates causality time travel or free will?

FISMA

Raah,

Let's not forget that Physics, literally means natural. It is the study of the natural world.

What is a thought? Do you believe in love? What is the equation for kindness? Can you define the mind? - not the brain.

Will you be the one to draw the line between Physics and metaPhysics? Even Einstein would not.

Physics is a tool - as with any tool, be careful how/when you use it.

Oh dear, Fatal error. The world is NOT deterministic, but probabilistic. Those little particles to which you refer are governed by the rules of QM.

Epic Fail...

Gurgle

gentillabdulla wrote: »

How would the computer react to this happening?

Would it blow up?

Would it stop working?

It's basically creating a paradox.

But the real question is which one negates causality time travel or free will?

Neither, time travel (backwards) is impossible. Free will is the direct application of physics, given a set of circumstances and information your brain will make the same decision every time. Free will is a matter of how your neural network is wired.

There is no paradox, a computer with all the information, including a full functional map of everybody's brain, will predict itself telling you that if you go to the bank today you'll get hit by a bus. It will also be able to determine whether you will believe it.

The world is ultimately deterministic, but you need all the information to make an accurate prediction.

gentillabdulla

Gurgle wrote: »

Neither, time travel (backwards) is impossible. Free will is the direct application of physics, given a set of circumstances and information your brain will make the same decision every time. Free will is a matter of how your neural network is wired.

There is no paradox, a computer with all the information, including a full functional map of everybody's brain, will predict itself telling you that if you go to the bank today you'll get hit by a bus. It will also be able to determine whether you will believe it.

The world is ultimately deterministic, but you need all the information to make an accurate prediction.

True but can such a computer even be made?

It wouldn't serve any purpose though.

Gurgle

gentillabdulla wrote: »

True but can such a computer even be made?

I wouldn't think the problem is so much the making of the computer as providing it with a way to access all the information.

gentillabdulla wrote:

It wouldn't serve any purpose though.

Sure it would, it could tell me whether I'll get hit by a bus if I go to the bank, and whether I'm going to ignore the warning or not...

raah!

FISMA wrote: »

Raah,

Let's not forget that Physics, literally means natural. It is the study of the natural world.

What is a thought? Do you believe in love? What is the equation for kindness? Can you define the mind? - not the brain.

Will you be the one to draw the line between Physics and metaPhysics? Even Einstein would not.

Physics is a tool - as with any tool, be careful how/when you use it.

Oh dear, Fatal error. The world is NOT deterministic, but probabilistic. Those little particles to which you refer are governed by the rules of QM.

Epic Fail...

Even if it's probabilistic and not deterministic, then free will is still ridiculous. If the particles are governed by Qm and not "free will" then you've just agreed with me.

Epic Fail...

Also, I'll thank you not to assume my position regarding any lines between metaphysics and physics.

And if we are to continue the trend of scientific materialism, a thought is an interaction between neurons, the mind is a product of the brain, love described as anything other than a release of chemicals is meaningless, kindness is determined casually just like everything else.

Also here's an example, we say something is probabalistic, and then deterministic (I'm only using your distinctions here, in my mind they are not so different). You'll see that neither really allows for a concept of free will unless you want to have some substance independent of free will (like a mind) , and then one can no longer claim to have a completely materialistic outlook

Event A can cause event B or C, weighted differently - probabalistic
Event A causes event B - Deterministic

FISMA

Sounds like you've watching that oh so terrible video what the bleep.



Your logic is just painful and incomprehensible. The definitions that you offer up are pitiful. The way you string the two together to meet and suit your cause is exactly the kind of mal-editing that What the Bleep is known for.

With all due respect, you need a good course in logic and several in Physics.

I leave the last post to you...

raah!

I have no idea what this bleep thing is about.

Thank you for providing me with the last post, In the future, you should offer arguments to support your criticisms. Your post has been nothing but insulting, you offer no arguments and then run off. Very good.

If you'd like to point out how the world being probabalistic is a case for free will then go ahead.

sponsoredwalk

What the Bl*$p Do We Know

From the link;

What the Bleep Do We Know!? has been described as "a kind of New Age answer to The Passion of the Christ and other films that adhere to traditional religious teachings."

Basically sums it up! Knowledge of Mel Gibson's comments, his dad's occupation, his comments about his dad, etc... etc...
give you insight into that film & the utter woo-woo it was proselytizing,
much as a knowledge of physics and math gives you insight into the utter woo-woo of this film

magicbastarder

FISMA wrote: »

Your logic is just painful and incomprehensible. The definitions that you offer up are pitiful. The way you string the two together to meet and suit your cause is exactly the kind of mal-editing that What the Bleep is known for.

stop being so hard on him; he has no free will so it's not his fault he posted that.

Morbert

FISMA wrote: »

Sounds like you've watching that oh so terrible video what the bleep.

Your logic is just painful and incomprehensible. The definitions that you offer up are pitiful. The way you string the two together to meet and suit your cause is exactly the kind of mal-editing that What the Bleep is known for.

With all due respect, you need a good course in logic and several in Physics.

I leave the last post to you...

Actually, raah is quite correct. Regardless of whether or not QM is inherently deterministic (which it might very well be), free will would still not exist in a purely natural world. Being constrained by a probability distribution and an implicit function of time makes you no more free than being constrained by a classical, explicit function of time.

Xios

Erm, i believe free will exists. QM is a constant, imagine it's a car. It will always be that car, while consciencious is the driver, moving the car where it pleases. The fact that the car constantly exists in a predetermined state is not proof that consciencious abides by those rules.

You can break everything down to the fundamentals, just like a raindrop in a hurricane, a single raindrop on its own is nothing and calling it a hurricane is absurd. The sum of the parts adds up to make the whole much larger. With causality, there are too many variables, it is and always will be impossible to predict the future exactly.

But perhaps this computer does exist already, it has 8 limbs and lives in fish tank in germany.

Morbert

Xios wrote: »

Erm, i believe free will exists. QM is a constant, imagine it's a car. It will always be that car, while consciencious is the driver, moving the car where it pleases. The fact that the car constantly exists in a predetermined state is not proof that consciencious abides by those rules.

I'm sure everyone agrees that, if consciousness does not have to completely abide by natural law then our will may be free in some sense. But the real issue is whether or not a will can be free and wholly consistent with quantum mechanics, and it cannot, as quantum mechanics says the state of a system evolves under specific rules.

Gurgle

Morbert wrote: »

the real issue is whether or not a will can be free and wholly consistent with quantum mechanics, and it cannot, as quantum mechanics says the state of a system evolves under specific rules.

Neural networks also develop and evolve under very specific rules, including the one that makes your decisions for you.

'Free will' just means that the decision making machinery is entirely contained within your skull.

Morbert

Gurgle wrote: »

Neural networks also develop and evolve under very specific rules, including the one that makes your decisions for you.

'Free will' just means that the decision making machinery is entirely contained within your skull.

I am taking the definition of free will to mean a will that is a fundamental arbiter that cannot be derived from natural laws. A neural network would not be free under this definition, even if it could be said to be free under looser definitions.

gentillabdulla

I think of it like this....

Okay lets say we have a moving electron.

Let's say the electron could exhibit consciousness.

Now what if the electron "detected" another electron.

No matter how much the electron wants to it cannot be magnetically attracted to another electron. It just can't. It can come close to another one but not magnetically attracted.

FarmerGreen

The universe exists.
We have almost seen the limits of its size, and a grasp of the interaction of mass space and time, yet even at the smallest scale a nucleus of an atom turns into a mad Rubicks cube of bits with funny names.

I think the physical universe is unconcerned with our existance.

Much less of what what we think of it.

It doesnt know we are here. Then some clever bugger invented religion.

Improbable

FarmerGreen wrote: »

The universe exists.
We have almost seen the limits of its size, and a grasp of the interaction of mass space and time, yet even at the smallest scale a nucleus of an atom turns into a mad Rubicks cube of bits with funny names.

I think the physical universe is unconcerned with our existance.

Much less of what what we think of it.

It doesnt know we are here. Then some clever bugger invented religion.

What does that have to do with causality or free will?

And isn't it theorized that our visible part of the universe isn't even close to being representative of the true size of the universe?

gentillabdulla

I wouldn't say it is theorized that it is bigger because there is mass we cannot see but can only be observed through its gravitational effects.(Dark matter)

And thats not counting the limitation of our sight due to the fact that light travels so slowly.

This is all what the big bang model tells us.(Not the dark matter stuff though.)

Improbable

Improbable wrote: »

What does that have to do with causality or free will?

And isn't it theorized that our visible part of the universe isn't even close to being representative of the true size of the universe?

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I wouldn't say it is theorized that it is bigger because there is mass we cannot see but can only be observed through its gravitational effect.(Dark matter)

And thats not counting the limitation of our sight due to the fact that light travels so slowly. This is because the light takes time to reach us.

This is all what the big bang model tells us.(Not the dark matter stuff though.)

Yes, well done for reiterating exactly what I said and trying to argue against me at the same time.

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Yes, well done for reiterating exactly what I said and trying to argue against me at the same time.

I wasn't arguing against you.

I was answering your question.

The point is that the universe is many magnitudes bigger than what we can actually see due to the fact that light travels so slowly.

Just so you know I am going back to edit my post.

I said the light travels so slowly twice.

sponsoredwalk

Colossal structures larger than the visible universe - forged during the period of cosmic inflation nearly 14 billion years ago - may be responsible for a strange pattern seen in the big bang's afterglow, says a team of cosmologists. If confirmed, the structures could provide precious information about the universe's earliest moments.
link

Improbable

I asked if the true size of the universe was bigger than our visible universe.

You said "I wouldn't say it is theorized that it is bigger"

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

I asked if the true size of the universe was bigger than our visible universe.

You said "I wouldn't say it is theorized that it is bigger"

I said that because it is known that just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Again it is because it takes so long for the light to reach us.

And nice link sponsoredwalk.

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I said that because it is known that just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Again it is because it takes so long for the light to reach us.

And nice link sponsoredwalk.

I don't quite understand what you mean. You said "I wouldn't say it is theorized that it is bigger" referring to my statement that the visible universe is smaller than the actual size of the universe? Can you try and explain more clearly what you meant by that statement?

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

I don't quite understand what you mean. You said "I wouldn't say it is theorized that it is bigger" referring to my statement that the visible universe is smaller than the actual size of the universe? Can you try and explain more clearly what you meant by that statement?

I meant that it really isn't considered theorized.

It's really not a theory.

It's because a large portion of the people say that it is larger but it really isn't known due to the speed of light.(i.e. We can't see it but almost everyone thinks there is a lot more than we can see.)

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I meant that it really isn't considered theorized.

It's really not a theory.

It's because a large portion of the people say that it is larger but it really isn't known due to the speed of light.(i.e. We can't see it but almost everyone thinks there is a lot more than we can see.)

Ok, thats just nit-picking at this point... How is it not a theory?

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Ok, thats just nit-picking at this point... How is it not a theory?

Well technically it is but it isn't considered a theory by everyone in the field.

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Well technically it is but it isn't considered a theory by everyone in the field.

Er, ok. So what you're actually trying to say is that it is a theory, just not a theory that everyone thinks is correct...

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Er, ok. So what you're actually trying to say is that it is a theory, just not a theory that everyone thinks is correct...

What I am trying to say it is a theory by definition but everyone thinks it is correct so it isn't considered a theory for anyone in the field.

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

What I am trying to say it is a theory by definition but everyone thinks it is correct so it isn't considered a theory for anyone in the field.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. You might want to go and look up the definition of what an actual scientific theory is, not just the layman definition.

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. You might want to go and look up the definition of what an actual scientific theory is, not just the layman definition.

Well I guess it is.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Nice one.

So I guess it is theorized.