Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins vs Sartre/ existentialism vs biological determinism
Comments
-
The loophole is closed in the same way that the "fairies in flowers" loophole is closed. This isn't a joke I should say. Strictly speaking all we have shown is that fairies must be very very small and weakly interacting with the electromagnetic force. However the possibility has been pushed to such an absurd degree that it's considered ruled out.This is excellent! Thank you! I hadn't yet come across a concise, yet detailed enough explanation of this point on superdeterminism.
Is it possible to get closer than this. I understand the explanation below and how shows that the alternative is an incredibly improbable coincidence, but I don't understand the actual closing of the loophole.
Before experiments like this the experimenters were simply in separated labs. One could imagine that the details of their conversations and other such things might have set up the necessary coincidences. For the Bell tests in the 80s this might not have been too far fetched as the most recent common event to all participants in the experiment was only a few seconds ago.Am I right with the part about removing the human decision making in the choice of settings? As in, the weak link in the chain has been removed, that was leaving the door (or loophole) open to the possibility that the experimenter's will is not free?
This pushes it back that human choices must have been set carefully to coordinate with quasar photons billions of years ago.
Their choice is still involved, e.g. when to run the experiment and what equipment to use and where and how to construct it. What this experiment shows is that there choice, if it is not in fact free, must be carefully controlled to sync with distant quasar light to prevent exposing the true local realist physics. The vast nature of this coincidence makes it much more likely that the choice is free.Because the results of the test do not change, does this then imply that the experimenters will was not a factor? This doesn't sound exactly right though.
Firstly one can play such an argument for the fairy case. The lack of detection of the fairies is simply a logical consequence of the theory of weakly electromagnetically interacting micro-fairies. So one must ask why you would play devil's advocate in this case and not the fairy case. Again this is not a joke, from a scientific perspective they are the same. No working theory, excluded to a massive degree by current experiments. From a strictly rational perspective you wouldn't play advocate for either. It's only that fairies aren't vanguards of pre-existing philosophical prejudices.If you don't mind, I'd like to play devil's advocate on this because there are a few questions that spring to mind.
Would superdeterminists not say that there is no coincidence, this seeming coincidence is just a logical necessity of determinism or superdeterminism? That the experimental set-up and testing, etc. is just the unique effect associated with the prior casue, with such a chain of cause and unique effect leading up to that point?
The problem in the superdeterminisitic case is the same. The timing required, the exact spatial locations required and so on are incredibly precise in order to maintain the illusion of QM being true. If an atom was one nanometer off 7.8 billion years ago the local realistic physics would be exposed.
This is the difference between determinism and superdeterminism. The latter is the former plus incredibly precise tuning of the state of the world to maintain the illusion of another theory being true. Many theories are deterministic but not superdeterministic because they don't do this. For example in Maxwellian Electromagnetism we have determinism, but the state of the world isn't set up to hide the existence of electromagnetic fields and make it look like scalar interactions are real.
Note that in these theories 99.9999999999...% of what goes on in the universe explicitly and obviously violates QM. It's just that when we go to look a precise set of coincidences has been encoded in the initial state to prevent us seeing any of this but to only see the 0.0000000000001% that seems to obey QM. It is like saying the world is full of 20 foot trolls but we always turn in sync with their jumps and develop selective deafness to only the sound of their footsteps precisely at the moments they touch the ground. Sure it might be a consequence of your imagined initial state in a theory they've never actually developed but you wouldn't take this seriously in the troll case or the fairy case. Scientifically speaking there is no reason to take it seriously in this case either.
However it gets worse for one can do data estimates for how much data must be encoded in the human brain to permit this coincidence given how finely tuned it is. It's not enough to just say human choices were set in advance to keep the local realist physics hidden. Any such precise conditions need degrees of freedom to encode them. These experiments let you estimate that an average gram of matter stores gigantic quantities of data hidden in near infinite degrees of freedom. However matter doesn't seem to contain these degrees of freedom whenever you actually test it. Again a super-deterministic theory has to posit that they are hidden.
So we end up with a world with billions and billions of petabytes of hidden information residing inside the human skull. Those quintillions of inaccessible petabytes were set at least 7.8 billion years ago in order to precisely control your choices to prevent the discovery of the true physics. You can also show that the laws of physics controlling these quantities are uncomputable (i.e. they cannot be described with an algorithm).
As I said if hidden petabytes are being acted on uncomputably to orchestrate events to prevent QM being exposed as false I think the only logical conclusion is that there is a demiurge.
However the more rational conclusion is that such determinism is ruled out. Relying as it does on enormous fine tuning and hidden computational structures.0 -
I very much appreciate your patience in all this and for this very comprehensive explanation. It is crystal clear now.The loophole is closed in the same way that the "fairies in flowers" loophole is closed. This isn't a joke I should say. Strictly speaking all we have shown is that fairies must be very very small and weakly interacting with the electromagnetic force. However the possibility has been pushed to such an absurd degree that it's considered ruled out.
Before experiments like this the experimenters were simply in separated labs. One could imagine that the details of their conversations and other such things might have set up the necessary coincidences. For the Bell tests in the 80s this might not have been too far fetched as the most recent common event to all participants in the experiment was only a few seconds ago.
This pushes it back that human choices must have been set carefully to coordinate with quasar photons billions of years ago.
Their choice is still involved, e.g. when to run the experiment and what equipment to use and where and how to construct it. What this experiment shows is that there choice, if it is not in fact free, must be carefully controlled to sync with distant quasar light to prevent exposing the true local realist physics. The vast nature of this coincidence makes it much more likely that the choice is free.
Firstly one can play such an argument for the fairy case. The lack of detection of the fairies is simply a logical consequence of the theory of weakly electromagnetically interacting micro-fairies. So one must ask why you would play devil's advocate in this case and not the fairy case. Again this is not a joke, from a scientific perspective they are the same. No working theory, excluded to a massive degree by current experiments. From a strictly rational perspective you wouldn't play advocate for either. It's only that fairies aren't vanguards of pre-existing philosophical prejudices.
The problem in the superdeterminisitic case is the same. The timing required, the exact spatial locations required and so on are incredibly precise in order to maintain the illusion of QM being true. If an atom was one nanometer off 7.8 billion years ago the local realistic physics would be exposed.
This is the difference between determinism and superdeterminism. The latter is the former plus incredibly precise tuning of the state of the world to maintain the illusion of another theory being true. Many theories are deterministic but not superdeterministic because they don't do this. For example in Maxwellian Electromagnetism we have determinism, but the state of the world isn't set up to hide the existence of electromagnetic fields and make it look like scalar interactions are real.
Note that in these theories 99.9999999999...% of what goes on in the universe explicitly and obviously violates QM. It's just that when we go to look a precise set of coincidences has been encoded in the initial state to prevent us seeing any of this but to only see the 0.0000000000001% that seems to obey QM. It is like saying the world is full of 20 foot trolls but we always turn in sync with their jumps and develop selective deafness to only the sound of their footsteps precisely at the moments they touch the ground. Sure it might be a consequence of your imagined initial state in a theory they've never actually developed but you wouldn't take this seriously in the troll case or the fairy case. Scientifically speaking there is no reason to take it seriously in this case either.
However it gets worse for one can do data estimates for how much data must be encoded in the human brain to permit this coincidence given how finely tuned it is. It's not enough to just say human choices were set in advance to keep the local realist physics hidden. Any such precise conditions need degrees of freedom to encode them. These experiments let you estimate that an average gram of matter stores gigantic quantities of data hidden in near infinite degrees of freedom. However matter doesn't seem to contain these degrees of freedom whenever you actually test it. Again a super-deterministic theory has to posit that they are hidden.
So we end up with a world with billions and billions of petabytes of hidden information residing inside the human skull. Those quintillions of inaccessible petabytes were set at least 7.8 billion years ago in order to precisely control your choices to prevent the discovery of the true physics. You can also show that the laws of physics controlling these quantities are uncomputable (i.e. they cannot be described with an algorithm).
As I said if hidden petabytes are being acted on uncomputably to orchestrate events to prevent QM being exposed as false I think the only logical conclusion is that there is a demiurge.
However the more rational conclusion is that such determinism is ruled out. Relying as it does on enormous fine tuning and hidden computational structures.
There are still a few questions popping up, but more just a question of minute details.
With regard to using the distant starlight. I was just reading that they use telescopes to capture the photons. How are these then used in the experiment, as in, do they travel through the telescope and then through a polarizer, or how does it work?
The question that is arising is whether or not the photon interacts with any part of the telescope to affect the outcome?
How is this reconciled with those thoughts/behaviours/decisions that are determined by prior causes?0 -
The frequency of the photons is detected on arrival at the telescope without travelling through it. The frequency is used to set the experimental settings.With regard to using the distant starlight. I was just reading that they use telescopes to capture the photons. How are these then used in the experiment, as in, do they travel through the telescope and then through a polarizer, or how does it work?
QM does not posit a totally acausal world. As with the Stern Gerlach experiment some aspects of the world have prior causes and some are free.How is this reconciled with those thoughts/behaviours/decisions that are determined by prior causes?0 -
Ah, I see. Very interesting!The frequency of the photons is detected on arrival at the telescope without travelling through it. The frequency is used to set the experimental settings.
So some decisions can be determined, while some aren't? Is it the outcome of the experiments that allow us to verify that the decisions - pertinent to the experiment - were freely made?QM does not posit a totally acausal world. As with the Stern Gerlach experiment some aspects of the world have prior causes and some are free.
I would love to pick your brains on a fairly minor point with regard to the Stern Gerlach experiment and the relativity of simultaneity, if you don't mind. Obviously my understanding stems from my discussions with Morbert so, apart from being on the shaky ground it already was, it might also be relevant to classic relativity as opposed to QFT.
My understanding was that events which an observer considers to be in their past and future are observable by a theoretical, relatively moving observer.
The classic thought experiment is of the relatively moving observers, Henry one on a train and Albert on the platform, who pass each other at some point O. Where O is equidistant between two light sources and where two flashes of light are emitted simultaneously in Albert's frame. In Henry's frame, the two flashes are not simultaneous. Instead, the flash to the front of the train (A) happens first and the flash to the rear happens second (B) (I think I've got the order correct there).
As the observers pass each other at point O, in Henry's frame of reference, flash A will already have happened while, for Albert it will not yet have happened i.e. it will be in his future. Similarly, as the train moves past and the flashes happen simultaneously in Albert's frame, flash B will still be in Herny's future.
This is what gives us the picture of the block universe where past, present, and future events co-exist within the block structure. Essentially, it is a real world representation of the mathematical formalism.
Does this reasoning still apply in QFT? This was my reasoning behind saying that the exposure event of the SG plate must already form part of the structure of the Universe.
I was thinking along the lines of two events simultaneous in Albert's reference frame, with one being the exposure of the SG plate (the other could be a random event). When Henry passes Albert at point O, the exposure event would already have happened in his reference frame, while being in the future for Albert. It was in this sense I was thinking there could only be one unique effect associated with the cause, prior to the outcome.
Would that no longer apply in QFT?0 -
The statistical distribution of the outcomes as they violate a Bell inequality (a CHSH inequality technically) which is provably impossible without free choice. The only way to break this inequality without free choice is superdeterminism, which as above is ruled out scientifically.So some decisions can be determined, while some aren't? Is it the outcome of the experiments that allow us to verify that the decisions - pertinent to the experiment - were freely made?
No basically.Does this reasoning still apply in QFT?0 -
Advertisement
-
Gotcha.The statistical distribution of the outcomes as they violate a Bell inequality (a CHSH inequality technically) which is provably impossible without free choice. The only way to break this inequality without free choice is superdeterminism, which as above is ruled out scientifically.
Are events which are simultaneous in one frame still non-simultaneous in another, relatively moving frame?No basically.0 -
-
-
-
If the thought experiment were to happen in the real world - hypothetical of course - would the front flash (A) still happen first in Henry's frame of reference with the rear flash (B) happening second?The logic of it doesn't work the same way due to subtleties in QFT.
When they pass each other at point O, will flash A already have happened in Henry's frame, but not yet in Albert's?0 -
Advertisement
-
Again as I said this will basically lead into a discussion of QFT which is a subject that takes two-three years to learn assuming one knows QM and Relativity.If the thought experiment were to happen in the real world - hypothetical of course - would the front flash (A) still happen first in Henry's frame of reference with the rear flash (B) happening second?
When they pass each other at point O, will flash A already have happened in Henry's frame, but not yet in Albert's?0 -
Genuinely, I'm not going to go down that avenue bcos I know where it will end.Again as I said this will basically lead into a discussion of QFT which is a subject that takes two-three years to learn assuming one knows QM and Relativity.
I'm just trying to see where my understanding of RoS breaks down in relation to QFT.0 -
QFT is just very different, but you have to know the subject. It breaks down due to the vastly different picture of the world in QFT, but to discuss it you'd have to know QFT.Genuinely, I'm not going to go down that avenue bcos I know where it will end.
I'm just trying to see where my understanding of RoS breaks down in relation to QFT.0 -
I appreciate that. I just try to bring everything back to real world examples because it helps me to visualise it better and I guess that is ultimately what these theories do, isn't it, predict observations in the real world?QFT is just very different, but you have to know the subject. It breaks down due to the vastly different picture of the world in QFT, but to discuss it you'd have to know QFT.
Are the flashes of light still considered events even?0 -
They do, but the real world observations have many more details than you have here.I appreciate that. I just try to bring everything back to real world examples because it helps me to visualise it better and I guess that is ultimately what these theories do, isn't it, predict observations in the real world?
I'll have to leave the QFT issues there.0 -
They do, but the real world observations have many more details than you have here.
I'll have to leave the QFT issues there.
No worries. I do appreciate your time, effort, and patience!
Was there information about the amount of data per gram of matter in those papers you posted a while back, or do I have to look elsewhere?0 -
-
Nice one! Cheers0 -
Thinking more about free will and the implications quantum mechanics has for it, there are still a few questions popping up. This is probably part of the process of adjusting from a deterministic bias.
We know that the decisions involved in quantum mechanical experiments must be free, given the sheer coincidence required for the alternative. We can verify that they are free by way of Bell tests.
But what about those decisions that are determined by prior causes? I think it's easier to think in terms of extreme behaviour such as compulsive behaviour or even falling in love. How do we distinguish these deterministic decisions from the truly free ones? These aren't necessarily testable by way of a bell test, presumably?
An example would be related to something you said earlier.
I replied to this somewhat facetiously, but there was a general point I was trying to get at, that is related to the point above about distinguishing deterministic choices from truly free ones.The people could be completely primed to the point where they are drugged into picking one option specifically and it wouldn't affect the point QM is making.
I understand that the point is probably exaggerated, but I read it to mean that their decisions could be completely determined by prior causes yet not affect the point that QM is making.
I understand that the alternative is the incredible co-incidence, but this does seem to contradict the idea that the decision is completely free. Can it be the case that even if the experimenters choices aren't free, QM would still not be invalidated because it wouldn't be relying on the massive coincidence that superdeterminism does. As in, a persons decisions could be completely determined from birth but as long as there is no common cause linking it to light from a distant star, then QM would not be invalidated?
I'm not trying to suggest this as an argument in favour of superdeterminism, but rather the idea that human choices can be determined, but not share a common cause with distant starlight?
I'm not certain that I'm articulating that very clearly but I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing in favour of superdeterminism, but rather trying to understand that full import of your comment above.
Can the human element be removed further? Could the time and location of the experiment be chosen by random number generator, and the equipment constructed using machines and 3D printers?Their choice is still involved, e.g. when to run the experiment and what equipment to use and where and how to construct it. What this experiment shows is that there choice, if it is not in fact free, must be carefully controlled to sync with distant quasar light to prevent exposing the true local realist physics. The vast nature of this coincidence makes it much more likely that the choice is free.
Would those decisions have to operate within certain constraints that are not of the choosing of the experimenter? Would the term "degrees of freedom" apply here?
For example:
Would the choice of when to run the experiment be constrained by access to equipment or convenient timing for all parties involved? Could it be replaced by random number generators?
Would the choice of equipment be constrained by anything, access to funding, the type of equipment that can actually be used? Could this be replaced by a random number generator?
Would the choice of how to construct the equipment be constrained by similar limitations on what is possible, affordable, available? Could designs be chosen by random number generator?
EDIT: Some of these decisions seem as though they would involve more than one person. Is it possible to streamline this by having one person making a decision and then delegating the rest to others, providing a set of very clear instructions?
2nd EDIT: Or perhaps, hypothetically, automating the whole process with just one person involved?
Theoretically, could running experiments every second of the day invalidate superdeterminism - not that it needs any further invalidating, but I'm wondering would this address the superdeterminists claim/requirement that the timing of the experiment be a massive coincidence?0 -
Sorry, so many questions are popping up which I am having trouble reconciling.
My thinking is that decisions are mental processes and mental processes are, I believe, demonstrably deterministic. How do we square this with undetermined free will?
I know that the alternative is the massive coincidence, but that isn't helping me reconcile the deterministic nature of thought processes with free will.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sitting in meditation today and a thought occurred to me, and then another one occurred, and then another, and another because that is how thinking happens. We do not choose our thoughts, our thoughts occur to us. It is the idea that we control our thinking which is commonly referred to as the illusion of free will.
Decisions are mental events, and as such, we do not control them, they arise out of our subconscious. We become consciously aware of the latter part of this process which causes us to believe that we are authoring those decisions. The content of our thoughts is entirely deterministic because we can only think about things with which we have had experience. Our minds are continually creating models based on the information that we have been exposed to. We cannot think in a language we do not know because our thinking is determined by the language we have learned. It's very much an input-output process.
How these thoughts occur to us can, perhaps, be random. If we are asked to choose heads or tails on the flip of a coin, ultimately the thought which occurs to us, which we verbalise as our choice, can arise randomly form our subconscious, but we do not choose the thought, it occurs to us.
This seemingly random choice however, is sparked by the original question. The thought, heads or tails would not occur to us if we were not asked the question. Asking the question causally influences the thought process. Similarly, the decisions made by experimenters in Bell tests occur under deterministic constraints. Being in the position to conduct a Bell test in the first place is determined by their being hired into the position, which is determined by their having studied physics, which is determined by a long chain of prior causes.
The choice of the time of the experiment will also have deterministic influences. The circadian rhythm of the experimenter will determine what their waking hours are, their lecture schedule (if they lecture) will determine what times are ruled out, along with myriad other deterministic influences.
If this chain of causal influences does allow for two or more equal choices, and the ultimate choice is just random, then it is not a self-willed choice. It is a random thought which occurs from the subconscious which enters awareness and sets off a causally deterministic chain of events which is the "choosing" event.
Would this randomness be compatible with Bell's inequality?0 -
The world has some aspects that are caused and some aspects that are not.
Thus some aspects of being able to conduct the Bell test are determined and some are not. So some aspects of your thoughts are caused and some are not.
Caused meaning "depends on previous physical events".0 -
Thanks Fourier, I can understand that.The world has some aspects that are caused and some aspects that are not.
Thus some aspects of being able to conduct the Bell test are determined and some are not. So some aspects of your thoughts are caused and some are not.
Caused meaning "depends on previous physical events".
How do we disinguish between apsects of our thoughts are cause or uncaused? If there is a discernible chain of causality for every decision, at what point does the chain become broken by our free will, only for our free will to set off a new chain of causal determinism?
I'm thinking in terms of what this means for free will. If some aspects of our thoughts are caused, that doesn't mean that those aspects that are uncaused are the result of "free will". If decisions are mental processes and those decisions are the result of random thoughts that just occur to us, as opposed to our choosing them, then that is not "free will".0 -
We can't currently. You'd need to do a full quantum mechanical model of the brain to know which aspects are and which are not. I would say this will never be fully possible, perhaps in some simple cases we might be able to know someday with help from psychological studies.Thanks Fourier, I can understand that.
How do we disinguish between apsects of our thoughts are cause or uncaused?
Again we currently don't know.If there is a discernible chain of causality for every decision, at what point does the chain become broken by our free will, only for our free will to set off a new chain of causal determinism?
"Random" is a very imprecise word for quantum theory. Random properly just means "requires probability theory". That your thoughts are "random" just means somebody else has to use probability theory to model them. It doesn't really have any ontic meaning.random thoughts that just occur to us0 -
It just seems questionable how we can have some decisions which are determined and some which are not, and somehow those decisions which are not determined just so happen to coincide with choosing settings in Bell tests.We can't currently. You'd need to do a full quantum mechanical model of the brain to know which aspects are and which are not. I would say this will never be fully possible, perhaps in some simple cases we might be able to know someday with help from psychological studies.
Again we currently don't know.
"Random" is probably the wrong choice of word, particularly when choices are completely constrained by prior cuases."Random" is a very imprecise word for quantum theory. Random properly just means "requires probability theory". That your thoughts are "random" just means somebody else has to use probability theory to model them. It doesn't really have any ontic meaning.
It was more meant to highlight the fact that the common perception we have that "I" make choices is inaccurate. As a mental event, "we" are not the authors of choices, choices arise out of the subconscious. It is in this sense that free will is an illusion.0 -
This is making something suspicious where there is no real coincidence. Some of our decision making is determined, some is not. The Bell test requires the some which is not, but it's there anyway. It's not "just so happening" to coincide with a Bell test alone. The Bell test is using something which QM says is present anyway all the time. You're making it sound like Free Choice is absent outside of Bell test setting choices.It just seems questionable how we can have some decisions which are determined and some which are not, and somehow those decisions which are not determined just so happen to coincide with choosing settings in Bell tests.
You're just asserting this, there's no conclusion from neurology that this is true and it contradicts what we've learned from physics. Choices don't seem to be completely constrained by prior causes, that's what the Bell tests show."Random" is probably the wrong choice of word, particularly when choices are completely constrained by prior cuases.
It was more meant to highlight the fact that the common perception we have that "I" make choices is inaccurate. As a mental event, "we" are not the authors of choices, choices arise out of the subconscious. It is in this sense that free will is an illusion.
If a choice arose purely out of some pre-existing state of affairs in the subconscious the Bell tests would fail. Thus it seems this isn't quite what is happening either.
Elements of our choice arise out of the subconscious, other elements are determined by various factors. But some element seems to be genuinely free, unhooked from either of these sources.0 -
Not that its absent outside of Bell tests but if some decisions are determined and some are not, it seems coincidental that we can suddenly turn off the deterministic decision making process when it comes to Bell tests (and the other allegedly free decisions that we make).This is making something suspicious where there is no real coincidence. Some of our decision making is determined, some is not. The Bell test requires the some which is not, but it's there anyway. It's not "just so happening" to coincide with a Bell test alone. The Bell test is using something which QM says is present anyway all the time. You're making it sound like Free Choice is absent outside of Bell test setting choices.
Is the decision to switch from determined decisions to free decisions a free choice in itself?
Similarly, if we think of our subconscious as owing to some neurological process then the Bell tests would be violated if decisions arose out of this "state of affairs. But you yourself said previously:You're just asserting this, there's no conclusion from neurology that this is true and it contradicts what we've learned from physics. Choices don't seem to be completely constrained by prior causes, that's what the Bell tests show.
If a choice arose purely out of some pre-existing state of affairs in the subconscious the Bell tests would fail. Thus it seems this isn't quite what is happening either.
Elements of our choice arise out of the subconscious, other elements are determined by various factors. But some element seems to be genuinely free, unhooked from either of these sources.For if we say that our choices are dictated by our neurons, and our neurons are dictated by biochemistry, biochemistry is dictated by quantum physics and we then find quantum physics requires those choices at the start of the chain we can't close the loop. We can't terminate in a fundamental cause.
This would seem to imply that the will or mind is what is fundamental.
Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud here. Could it be the decisions arising out of this will/mind are truly free. This would have more implications for the notion of "self" than free will, per se.
Without wanting to get too esoteric, Buddhist philosophy talks about the conditioned mind, which we tend to think of as our "self". These thought processes would be completely deterministic, being shaped by our prior experiences and reacting to present stimuli.
The idea behind meditation is to quiten this part of the mind and revel the "true nature of the mind".0 -
We don't "turn if off" that's the point. It's always on, it's just not the totality of things. Some aspects of an event, even a mental event, are caused/determined and some are not.Not that its absent outside of Bell tests but if some decisions are determined and some are not, it seems coincidental that we can suddenly turn off the deterministic decision making process when it comes to Bell tests (and the other allegedly free decisions that we make).
It's not saying that mind/will is fundamental, just that you can't close the causal chain to give determinism. The point is more that it's a loop, you want Free choice to actually just be a result of particles but then their behaviour depends on Free choice, which depends on particles, which depends on....and so on.Similarly, if we think of our subconscious as owing to some neurological process then the Bell tests would be violated if decisions arose out of this "state of affairs. But you yourself said previously:
This would seem to imply that the will or mind is what is fundamental.
And along with this dependence/determinism there is "freedom" at all levels.
Decisions are free, just as many events in the world are, even non-mental ones.Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud here. Could it be the decisions arising out of this will/mind are truly free.
Pauli and some others (I believe Kochen himself did) taught and/or think something along this line. There's certainly strong similarities between QM and some Buddhist philosophy which is why many of the early writers on QM drew upon it, but I don't think we know enough yet to classify things tightly enough to know if this is true or not.Without wanting to get too esoteric, Buddhist philosophy talks about the conditioned mind, which we tend to think of as our "self". These thought processes would be completely deterministic, being shaped by our prior experiences and reacting to present stimuli.
The idea behind meditation is to quiten this part of the mind and revel the "true nature of the mind".
Interesting idea though.0 -
Pauli and some others (I believe Kochen himself did) taught and/or think something along this line. There's certainly strong similarities between QM and some Buddhist philosophy which is why many of the early writers on QM drew upon it, but I don't think we know enough yet to classify things tightly enough to know if this is true or not.
Interesting idea though.
Have you read Kahneman's Thinking, fast and slow? In it, he talks about the mind as having two systems, system 1 and system 2. These are just broad terms for the sake of discussion.
System 1 is our more intuitive system, it's the one that acts in a split second to give an answer to a problem. Through repeated exposure to situations, intuition can be built up. In my own words, it might be possible to think of it in terms of the model that we build up through our experiences. When we meet a situation, our system 1 provides an intuitive answer/reaction based on our pre-exiting models. An example he gives is:Thinking, fast and slow" wrote:For an example, here is a simple puzzle. Do not try to solve it but listen to your intuition:
A bat and ball cost $1.10.
The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?
Now, someone like yourself might be well accustomed to questions of this nature and can spot the answer pretty quickly. But for many (if not most) people an intuitive answer pops into the head. It is usually the wrong answer.
In this context, Kahneman talks about system two as the fact checker. It's that part of the mind that doesn't respond with the intuitive answer but recognises that an intuitive answer has arisen and then questions it.
System 1 would be entirely deterministic but system 2 would not appear to be. I'm wondering if this could be a way to think of it, with regard to QM.
A separate question, but related to some of the issues we've discussed. I'm not looking to get into the minutiae of QFT but am I right in thinking that QFT is not compatible with the Block Universe interpretation of relativity? Or is there something in QFT* that makes it compatible with the BU?
*If there is something in QFT, I'm not looking to get into it here, I'm just curious as to whether there is something.0 -
Advertisement
-
People mean various things by "The Block Universe", but I think there's a very common variant which is probably the one you are talking about. It that case no QFT is not really compatible with it.
People will often say QM has deterministic interpretations that might be compatible with it like Bohmian Mechanics, but they share some of the same issues as superdeterminism (fine tuning) and often have more of their own (not replicating most of quantum theory).0
Advertisement