philosophical thinking time (theory on fate)

[slade]

PLUS I at least like to believe im making my own choices.

i dont beleive what i would like to be true, i beleive what seems to be the most logical answer. i would LIKE to beleive good people go to heaven when they die, but to me the whole religion thing doesnt seem logical or realistic, so its not what i beleive. personally i want to beleive that we each control our fate, but i cant find any flaw in this theory.

a bit of clarification: by "the illusion that you are thinking," i mean the illusion that you can think and decide one way for another; that you are in complete control.

[Sooky]

what is your thought of searching for food? neurons releasing chemicals and electrical discharges? then there is only one way that you can act, the way those discharges compell you to.

You, and Slade too I think, are assuming materialism about the mind where sensations and mental states equal brain states -strict identity. I think its obvious the only thing we do know is that mental states are correlated with brain states, which nevertheless may or may not still allow for you to determine your own actions. If you want to argue otherwise you are getting into problems a philosopher of mind deals with. You will also have to give an account of things like how consciousness can be physical, and qualia or secondary properties can be physical. Good luck with that...

[nuclear zombie]

Not with infinite smallness of nature , because as much as we like to think it, atoms/quarks (whatever small unit you want to use ) are not all perfectly alike even of the same matter. This causes an exponential unpredictability directly proportional to the amount of small matter you are attempting to predict . This line of thinking always leads back to the question: is the universe infinite ? , if it isn't infinite then it is predictable and vice versa.

[Lohman446]

, because as much as we like to think it, atoms/quarks (whatever small unit you want to use ) are not all perfectly alike even of the same matter. This causes an exponential unpredictability directly proportional to the amount of small matter you are attempting to predict . .

Let me say at base I disagree with fatalistic arguments - because I want to. However, I do not discount the logical argument that arrives at the conclusion of fatalism.

Although you are correct, these differences from one to the other, do not change the fatalistic conclusion. They just change how hard it is to predict, and may possibly make it impossible. However, being able to predict "fate" or the inability instead to do so, does not prove or disprove its existence. It proves the shortcomings of the prediction method, as you pointed out our inability (it would seem) to take into consideration each difference in each atom/quark involved. However - it does not disprove fatalism or make an argument for free will.

[deadeye9]

it always moves at a constant speed and its direction is predictable.

I don't think this is accurate. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
one cannot measure the position or velocity of a particle to an arbitrary precision.
That is, nothing is completely predictable.

[Lohman446]

I don't think this is accurate. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
one cannot measure the position or velocity of a particle to an arbitrary precision.
That is, nothing is completely predictable.

But an inability to measure does not disprove the existence - in this case of a "predetermined" path or position.

[PyRo]

The whole premise boils down to do living creatures have free will. Your opinion on this is based on your religious beliefs or lack theirof. This argument is theirfore pointless.

[Lohman446]

. This argument is theirfore pointless.

The argument is an interesting argument, I find it logical and reasonably compelling. That being said I do not accept its conclusion but it is interesting to consider where I find it to loose track. I can follow it all the way to the conclusion, and agree wtih the logic, further study of the argument would be interesting, because somewhere I accept, despite the logic of it, that it is not true. As such it is not pointless, its an interesting philosophical discussion and exercise if nothing else

[deadeye9]

Maybe all philosophical arguments are pointless.
The previous line, being a philosophical argument, is pointless.
This is fun.

I think the argument also boils down to the randomness of the universe.
Randomness makes predetermination impossible.

[Lurker27]

Little something I wrote recently about determinism

Question of the day.

Ho-kay. If all matter is governed by a few immutable laws of interaction, then given the vectors and masses of each particle at the onset of the big bang...everything would be perfectly predictable.

No free will.

Since, to a very good approximation, we have free will, there has to be something else. I believe it lies in the one truly random element in our universe, electron position and energy. (Granted, String theory predictions similar things for a few other bosons, and perhaps some fermions)

This has to due with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but the gist of it is that electrons are constantly shifting positions and energies along a continuum, and we can think of our perception of an electrons energy as an average of these energies. So, electron energy will influence motion (E=mc^2) and lo, the universe is now random.,..we don't knwo what's necessarily going to happen.

(((Here I think it's prudent to note that in the context of general relativity, this introduces singularities that create what is known as quantum foam, a theoretical impossibility. (String theory gets rid of this by smoothing the spatial fabric of the universe theough the introduction of 6 additional spatial dimesions curled up on smaller than Planck-Length scales in the geometrical construct known as Calabi-Yau space (multidimesional Kahler manifold). It should be noted that an additional theory put forth by Edward Witten needs 7 additional spatial dimensions compacted into a G2 manifold. ) Point is, there are some objections to the ranodm nature of quantum mechanics, notably Einstein's, but it works in all our current theoretical and experimental models.)))

It has been suggested that our brain, and other similar structures, can collapse the Schroedinger wave function in deterministic ways. So...long story short, if we have microtubule structures in our brain capable of picking our movements via neurochemical interactions...what is tellin our brains how to pick our free will? What is truly selecting our destiny?

[deadeye9]

It is my understanding that electron energies do not exist along a continuum,
rather these energies exist in discrete levels.

The rest of that is way beyond me.

[bjjb99]

Question of the day.

Ho-kay. If all matter is governed by a few immutable laws of interaction, then given the vectors and masses of each particle at the onset of the big bang...everything would be perfectly predictable.

No free will.

Since, to a very good approximation, we have free will, there has to be something else.

Um... aren't you glossing over a bit there? Why should I, the reader, simply accept your statement that "we have free will"? Do we have free will? How can one determine whether such a capability is present? When examining a choice, how can one differentiate between free will allowing one to choose any option available and predeterminism allowing one to seemingly choose any option but only truly permitting the foregone conclusion?

Perhaps our concept of free will stems from the fact that we are unable to know our futures. Perhaps free will is just that, a concept in one's mind... an illusion to provide a feeling of having some sort of control over some tiny bit of this most interesting distribution of matter an energy called the universe.

I believe it lies in the one truly random element in our universe, electron position and energy.

What makes these two items random? Perhaps they are precisely determined, but not measureable?

This has to due with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but the gist of it is that electrons are constantly shifting positions and energies along a continuum, and we can think of our perception of an electrons energy as an average of these energies.

My understanding of Heisenberg is that the act of measuring the state of a system affects the system; in order to perform the measurement one must interact somehow with the system and thus exchange energy. This exchange of energy alters the system. I do not think Heisenberg makes any claims as to the determinism of a system's state, only the measureability of said state.

BJJB

[deadeye9]

I would argue that precise determination and measurability are the same thing.
Precise determination of an electron's position and velocity is not possible.

[Lohman446]

I would argue that precise determination and measurability are the same thing.
Precise determination of an electron's position and velocity is not possible.

Is it not possible because we do not have the ability to do it, or is it not possible because the electron does not follow predictable (and perhaps unkown) laws of physics?

[Lurker27]

Sorry I dropped that in there out of the context of the discussion.

We either are determined to go on one path, by all the laws of physics, OR, WE can choose one path through our choices, OR, there are many paths, continuously branching in parallel universes, and we merely navigate along these.

I am of the opinion that the final case is most correct, since quantum computing effectively determines that there is at least some multiverse-like characteristics to be found.

You understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle correctly, however, I was writing for an audience less educated than yourself in the most part.

The real meat of the issue actually lies squarely with the Schroedinger wave equation. ((Unfortunately, no one, not even Erwin himself, truly knows how his wave functions work, but they're exquisitely accurate when you go to hybridize orbitals and apply the electron enrgies to bonding in general. Remember than when dealing with differential equations, on can sum answers to obtain an equally valid answer. This is at the heart of orbital hybridization.))

Anyway, the SWE is actually a probability equation, with its peak at the most likely energy level (distance from the nucleus). However, the electron can either be thought to be continuously (randomly) oscillating from on energy level to another...The best we can do is guess that it is at the max probability (this is neglecting the node/antinode pattern found in higher energy shells).

This all leads us construe electron behavior as random and erratic (old view) or, more recently, as the manifestation of a multiverse. Electrons are interacting with each other to obscure their true position, almost like wave interference (nicely jiving with the particle wave duality). This suggests that electrons are somewhat mobile between dimensions, or are at least sufficiently entangled.

Either way, free will, since we can, to a very good approximation, choose where we want to go and what we want to do, must be able to somehow make decisions. (most of the brain, on this level, is analogous to amplification circuitry)

That's my take on the whole thing. I'm pretty comfortable with it.