Are our lives completely predetermined?

[Kit-]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

Exactly.

But if we do believe in an entirely physical universe, then I think we have come to the conlcusion that this type of predetermination does exist.

The article previously linked to presents this conclusion quite well.

I don't believe you really understood the point of my first post. Physics points to there being no predetermination.

[Could_Strife007]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

I don't believe you really understood the point of my first post. Physics points to there being no predetermination.

But if we were to "zoom in" and see how the photons interfered with each other, would there not be a way to potentially predict their motion?

And if the 'double slit' experiment produces the same result each time, is that not predictable motion, even if the result is a probability function?

I'm not very familiar with quantum physics, is there an acceptance that particle motion can be random?

I guess this brings up the issue that this predetermination theory is also based on the idea that all motion is potentially predictable, not that we can actually predict it.

I'm still not sure I understand exactly the point you were trying to make.

[Kit-]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

I guess this brings up the issue that this predetermination theory is also based on the idea that all motion is potentially predictable, not that we can actually predict it.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that the product of the uncertainties which result from measuring position and momentum by any method must be greater or equal to half of Dirac's constant, meaning that it's not even potentially possible to predict their motions exactly.

But if we were to "zoom in" and see how the photons interfered with each other, would there not be a way to potentially predict their motion?

No, see above.

And if the 'double slit' experiment produces the same result each time, is that not predictable motion, even if the result is a probability function?

That was just experimental evidence in case people decided to say "lol heisenberg what a load of bunk."

[Could_Strife007]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that the product of the uncertainties which result from measuring position and momentum by any method must be greater or equal to half of Dirac's constant, meaning that it's not even potentially possible to predict their motions exactly.

OK, this page helped me understand the premise behind the Uncertainty Principle, but I'm not exactly sure why the deviation product in this case must be at least half of Dirac's constant. Why is this?

That was just experimental evidence in case people decided to say "lol heisenberg what a load of bunk."

In the sense that the experiment could only produce a function of probability?

In classical physics, it was believed that if one knew the initial state of a system with infinite precision, one could predict the behavior of the system infinitely far into the future. According to quantum mechanics, however, there is a fundamental limit on the ability to make such predictions, because of the inability to collect the initial data with unlimited precision.

Even if there is a limit on the ability to collect the initial position, the initial position must still exist. Does Quantum Mechanics say that everything exists in multiple positions in space at one time?

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

Does Quantum Mechanics say that everything exists in multiple positions in space at one time?

In the frame of reference of photons, they are everywhere that they ever were and ever will be at the same time.

Not to us, though.

Even if there is a limit on the ability to collect the initial position, the initial position must still exist.

You're leaving the scope of your entire question, here. Sure, the initial position exists, but since we can't measure it, we can't predict anything. And since you're talking about predetermination, I assume you mean predetermination by humans, and not by some mystical figure who actually can pinpoint a position and momentum simultaneously.

Even if the initial position exists, if we can't measure it, then we can't predict anything.

And if the 'double slit' experiment produces the same result each time, is that not predictable motion, even if the result is a probability function?

You misunderstand the conclusions of the experiment. What is predictable is the outcome (that there will be an interference pattern if both slits are open). The motion is entirely unpredictable, though; nobody could ever tell you which slit an individual photon would go through if both slits are open.

I'm not very familiar with quantum physics, is there an acceptance that particle motion can be random?

I'm not sure it's germane to the scope of interest, but look up Brownian motion.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

I would say no. Quantum mechanics should prohibit it. The entire universe as a whole is indeterminate. You cannot know with 100% certainty the outcome of most events. For example, it is possible to pass through a wall. Unlikely? Yes, so unlikely in fact given you tried to for the entire duration of the universes existance you would probably not make it through, but alas still possible.

That computer monitor sitting infront of you; there is nothing keeping it there other than shere probability. It could at any moment appear in another room.

And then we have crazy things in this universe like turbulence that we just can't seem to figure out. Quantum foam anyone?

It's not like I can prove that the universe is or is not predetermined, but I would like to think of it as self manifesting, and we determine our own path in life ( at least relative to the choices we are actually able to make). As an analogy, rather than thinking of the universe as a set of determined reactions, I would think of a set of reactions that are like dice; each reaction having multiple outcomes that have not yet been determined.

You can take a pair of identical twins, who are genetically exactly the same. They have the same brains. Do they have the same thoughts and make the same choices? No, they don't, because their existance influences these 'dice' reactions that are happening all around them, independant of one another. They too are able to make thier own choices, and their existance is not predetermined in any way.

I think you would require a set of supernatural forces to try and say the universe and everything in it is predetermined. What we do know from science points to the fact that this simply isn't true.

Instead, what appears to be happening is there is a certain degree to which things are predetermined; for example, you have to abide by the laws of physics. However, within this degree of prederministic existance, there is chaos and randomness which can exist freely from the predetermined. These 'Laws' in themselves make up the framework, or the 'rules' of the 'game', and then from there it is a free for all battle. The world would be one hell of a lame place had we no influence on events. Questions like 'why' or 'how' would be erased; the answer simply becomes 'because' and 'it just does'.


edit: I was just thinking and, I hope you guys that do believe everything is predetermined don't believe in God I mean, holy ****, God would be such an a-hole if everything was predetermined. You know, imagine a family that has some sob sneak into their house in the middle of the night and murder every one of them. Well then, God planned that. He planned it every time something goes horribly wrong in your life. He planned it every time you lose, all of your failures and shortcomings were planned by this being you worship and love.

Yea...for the sake of keeping some good in religion I hope I'm right XD

[kylehaas]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

not completely. we make all the decisions, and we control our futures.

dont be a frigggin retard, please.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

And what reason is there to disbelieve the existence of free will anyway? Arguments against free will are often of the sort “in a purely physical world, free will cannot exist.” I think this is true: in a purely physical world, free will could not exist. But why must we believe in a purely physical world? Why cannot we simply apply logic to the existence of free will to conclude that materialism (the belief that only the physical world exists) is mistaken?

Because, you cannot prove that free will exists, which means that you cannot conclude that our universe is not completely physical.

We can prove that everything in the universe is created from physical particles This proof is based on repeated and expected sensory perception of experimental data and materials.

Not quite. It is true my perceptions (as of free will) could be illusory (even if I think it is unlikely). However, the same goes for sensory perceptions. All sensory perceptions of the physical world could be illusory also, and you cannot prove they are not. Therefore, you cannot prove there even exists such things as physical particles.

You talk about testing theories with sensory perceptions. I also have repeated perceptions of my free will. If I want to test the belief that I can control my actions, I can try moving my arm or typing the keyboard--and behold, it happens. You might say that this perception is illusory, but once we discount perceptions, we also have no grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

Rejection of free will and belief in a purely physical world seem rational on the surface, but once we dig deeper we find that this worldview collapses on itself.

[aperson]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

The notion that we can be seen as a very large cellular automata network has been presented many times. It's an interesting and reasonable concept to try to construct existence as a base case (the first instant of the big bang), and then as a generating algorithm which can spawn each future frame of the base case.

Now, initially it might seem that quantum physics and stochasticity tear this belief apart, but this belief has a few problems that must be addressed:

First, what good does having a stochastic versus deterministic process do for you? It might answer the question of whether our lives are predetermined, but it doesn't say anything about free will. It could just be that we have no free will, but instead of a single outcome occurring, there is now a branched pathway out from each event with a given probability assigned to it. Instead of life being predetermined, it is instead just completely outside of your control. There are certainly stochastic automata, and I could easily program one for you to show you. Even though each cell inside of a stochastic network might cause a different outcome when the same network arises twice, the cells still do not have any free will in the decision.

If you think in terms of our development from the quantum level, you can see human beings as a process which has just bootstrapped itself up a few times from the quantum level. Even though we might be able to normalize the chaos inherent in our systems, we ultimately rest upon quantum, stochastic processes which act completely beyond our scope of control... We just happen to have large sample sizes on our side to normalize variance over quantum phenomena.



I also just want to add:
"Though this is an interesting proposition, I believe in chaos theory, which nullifies everything you said."

Actually, it doesn't. Mathematical chaos just describes systems which have very small and confounding epsilons for large, dynamical change. There is still a sense of causality inside of these systems; even the Lorenz attractor, which is the crowning origin of mathematical chaos, shows some level of consistency across a range of inputs for variables. Ultimately, chaos theory is undermined by the Buddhist idea of karma: Everything is based off of causes and dependent arising. Though things may have their causal links buried at a very inscrutable level, they still exist and events are still attached.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

First, what good does having a stochastic versus deterministic process do for you?

I might be able to help here. A common interpretation of quantum mechanics is what I'll call metaphysical randomness: that identical physical conditions can yield different outcomes. The human soul can interact by having limited power to choose which outcome will happen (in the human brain). Methinks this would happen over an aggregate network of physically infinitesimal sites. Of course, the question could arise of how this delicate relationship between the soul and brain came about. (I could answer with a possible theory if anybody’s interested…)

[aperson]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

I might be able to help here. A common interpretation of quantum mechanics is what I'll call metaphysical randomness: that identical physical conditions can yield different outcomes. The human soul can interact by having limited power to choose which outcome will happen (in the human brain). Methinks this would happen over an aggregate network of physically infinitesimal sites. Of course, the question could arise of how this delicate relationship between the soul and brain came about. (I could answer with a possible theory if anybody’s interested…)

Right, the metaphysical randomness is what I described above by having a cellular automaton which possesses the same state at different times, but each state leads to a different outcome on the next frame. I don't think you need to call it 'metaphysical randomness' though, I think true probability fits it much, much better. However, you make a leap in assumption by saying that the human soul has any power 'to choose which outcome will happen.' This is the requirement to validate free-will, but where is the proof behind the claim? Certainly it's possible to demonstrate an illusion of causal will over a pseudo-random event (i.e. all random number generators on computers today), but could you demonstrate causal will over quantum phenomena?



Also as a note:

Rejection of free will and belief in a purely physical world seem rational on the surface, but once we dig deeper we find that this worldview collapses on itself.

Not necessarily. Take the perspective that all of your sensory inputs merely provide a graph of reality. At another level, you can view consciousness as a graph of all your sensory inputs. In essence then, the reality we define is nothing but a graph, or image, of the true nature of reality. At all times, we aren't seeing reality as it is, rather we are seeing images (think of the mathematical definition of the image of a function here) that we have created as a function of our own processes. This means that the concept of free will is ultimately a graph of our consciousness, and ultimately we are passive observers in a sequence of events.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

However, you make a leap in assumption by saying that the human soul has any power 'to choose which outcome will happen.' This is the requirement to validate free-will, but where is the proof behind the claim?

What is the proof that atoms exist? Data? Then how do we know our sensory perceptions are not illusions? Eventually we have to rely on our perceptions somewhere. My direct perceptions tell me that I exist and I have free will. As I said earlier,

I also have repeated perceptions of my free will. If I want to test the belief that I can control my actions, I can try moving my arm or typing the keyboard--and behold, it happens. You might say that this perception is illusory, but once we discount perceptions, we also have no grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

Rejection of free will and belief in a purely physical world seem rational on the surface, but once we dig deeper we find that this worldview collapses on itself.

Not necessarily. Take the perspective that all of your sensory inputs merely provide a graph of reality. At another level, you can view consciousness as a graph of all your sensory inputs. In essence then, the reality we define is nothing but a graph, or image, of the true nature of reality. At all times, we aren't seeing reality as it is, rather we are seeing images (think of the mathematical definition of the image of a function here) that we have created as a function of our own processes.

That's all fine, but the point is there is no way to prove that those "graphs" correspond to reality. Once we toss out perceptions as a basis for belief (because they are not "proven"), we also toss out any grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

[aperson]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

What is the proof that atoms exist? Data? Then how do we know our sensory perceptions are not illusions? Eventually we have to rely on our perceptions somewhere. My direct perceptions tell me that I exist and I have free will. As I said earlier,






That's all fine, but the point is there is no way to prove that those "graphs" correspond to reality. Once we toss out perceptions as a basis for belief (because they are not "proven"), we also toss out any grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

Okay, then necessarily I believe that our reality is not real. What is wrong with this belief? I think the human mind as it has been programmed over the course of human history does not readily open up to the collapse of subject and object. But really, mind-only Buddhists have been expressing this belief for thousands of years.

Moreover, I think all of these claims show that the argument for free will is undecidable, because they all require 'going up a level' to create any background assumptions to answer the question; the question isn't answerable inside the system of human perception itself.

But that causes us to jump up to a higher question: Why must our system of perception be consistent, decidable, or complete? Godel's claims about the limitations of formal systems are inextricably linked to human cognition and human will. In fact, there are some individuals (when I'm back on campus I'll find the book and author) that argue that the ability to create a Godel proof itself derives free will.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

Okay, then necessarily I believe that our reality is not real. What is wrong with this belief?

Solipsism has its advantages: you only accept beliefs that can be "proven." But you also toss out a lot of other things that seem rational to believe: the existence of atoms, that the Holocaust occurred etc.

Godel's claims about the limitations of formal systems are inextricably linked to human cognition and human will. In fact, there are some individuals (when I'm back on campus I'll find the book and author) that argue that the ability to create a Godel proof itself derives free will.

That seems interesting.

[drummerlsu]

Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?

I don't think that measureable uncertainty and predetermination have to be mutually exclusive. Just because a quantity can't be measured exactly doesn't mean it isn't an exact quantity.

One thing I don't understand is why some of you claim quantum mechanics isn't deterministic. The Shrodiner equation gives an exact description of the quantum state. Again, just because there is no way to actually find out what the state is doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Just because something is predetermined doesn't mean anyone can actually find out what is is.