A challenge to show me wrong

[Willamena]

Would you like to start one?

Perhaps you should: I'm not even sure what the topic would be, since what I said doesn't contradict determinism being an objective fact.

 

[atanu]

To this point it is an argument against the Geiger Counter being what collapses the wave function since we have to in turn observe the measurements that were taken. If the counter is measuring it may be counted as an "observer" which in theory can be sufficient to cause the collapse but it is debatable. Either way the observer that is causing the collapse must work at a quantum level and leaves open the possibility that our brains do.

The criticism that the quantum actions are not applicable at brain level does not seem to hold any water, since the observations are not at quantum level -- the brain processes are seen and understood at mechanical level. How the subtler indivisible Quantum causations-forces, if any, will be known?

 

[PolyHedral]

That is your bias speaking. Did I ever say of any man? But Bohm has written about an Implicate Order and frankly I will rather give credence to him than to you.

Oops, that'll teach me to use a metaphor on the internet. I only meant that there is nothing hidden in a way that's implied by other beliefs, such as souls, karma, et al. AFAIK, quantum mechanics (or more probably, the theory of everything built out of quantum mechanics) is the last "layer" of reality; there is nothing further down.

All manifested particulate or localised objects, including material Brain, are what Bohm calls an "explicate" or "unfolded" order that are manifest in Implicate Order. While the consciousness is Implicate -- not localised at the deepest level but that gives rise to structures at local levels.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2517581-post27.html

I am not saying that David Bohm must be 100% correct. I am only contesting your careless assertions as below:

Reading that, I do not like Bohm's philosophy. His use of terms is sloppy and unrigorous, especially important terms like "order." He's not clear whether it refers to mathematical ordering, thermodynamic organization, or something else. He's also trying to get rid of the notion of time, and replace it with a undefined "moment", and his logic there is quite noticeably shaky.

A Geiger Counter is observed and is not an observer

In Copenhagen QM, a geiger counter is almost certainly an observer, in that it will collapse the wavefunction, even if we don't look at the subsequent results. I don't know for sure, and if you can cite an experiment to the contrary, be my guest.

Bohm does imply determinism at explicate level. But not at Implicate-wholeness level.

My impression from Wikipedia was the opposite. deB-B theory implies that only the universe-as-******** is deterministic; subsystems aren't because they interact with the wider universe.

Bohm has linked consciousness with Implicate order -- albeit the terms used may not be same. In fact, Bohm prefers to call 'Quantum Mechanics' as Quantum Organism' (kindly read the interview with patience).

Quantum mechanics itself is not capable of making statements about consciousness, and

I reiterate that I am not saying that Bohm must be correct. I am just pointing out that many hard core physicists do not say what you say.

But the physicists say so wearing their philosopher hat. Pure physics is not developed to the point where it can comment on the philosophical matters you're talking about, (mostly because it's not testable) so we're left without a solid foundation. However, I am confident of my own view (of course ) because, as far as I know, it's based entirely on what physics and mathematics can tell us, and using Occam's Razor to fill in the rest. Since, AFAIK, Occam's Razor has never failed, this appears valid, so long as people remember it's an assumption that should be updated if tests contradict it.

I am sad that we seem to move in circles without ever coming to a common understanding and thus I consider it futile to continue any discussion on this topic with you -- at least for the time being. No offense meant.

Isn't patience a virtue? :sad:If there's a specific idea you want to discuss, go for it, but I usually get lost in the vagueness.

 

[Falvlun]

As far as I can tell, the burden of proof lies on anyone suggesting the brain isn't deterministic, because there's no evidence to suggest that the brain interacts with quantum noise, and that's the only non-deterministic element in current physics.

You are applying a model to something that is not yet very well understood. I am not currently advocating some other process, which would require proof and coherency. I am merely stating that "I don't know" is a fine answer in the face of not enough evidence, and that I choose to currently believe that freewill exists as that best corresponds with my perception.

 

[atanu]

Oops, that'll teach me to use a metaphor on the internet.

Good.

Reading that, I do not like Bohm's philosophy.

Good.

In Copenhagen QM, a geiger counter is almost certainly an observer,

This interpretation is a shoddy answer to Schrödinger's cat or Wigner's friend paradoxes. Even a basic student will question that setting up a Geiger Counter, which is not in wave realm, collapses its state.

My impression from Wikipedia was the opposite. deB-B theory implies that only the universe-as-******** is deterministic; subsystems aren't because they interact with the wider universe.

As per Bohm, the Implicate order is knowable through 'Theory of Everything' -- in principle. Once the Implicate order is known, the explicate can be known. That is what he did by using 'Guide Wave'. But that was not about human society, about which Bohm is close to Schopenhauer.

But the physicists say so wearing their philosopher hat. ---- Since, AFAIK, Occam's Razor has never failed, ----

Do you mean to say that these physicists are unaware? Can you cite them when it suits and resort to the razor otherwise?

Isn't patience a virtue? :sad:If there's a specific idea you want to discuss, go for it, but I usually get lost in the vagueness.

It is. Unfortunately I am short on it, especially when same speculation is served as fact again and again.

 

[idav]

The criticism that the quantum actions are not applicable at brain level does not seem to hold any water, since the observations are not at quantum level -- the brain processes are seen and understood at mechanical level. How will the subtler indivisible Quantum causations-forces, if any, will be known?

We just keep poking and proding and finding better ways to test and measure it.

Wave Function Directly Measured - Science News

 

[PolyHedral]

Citation?

You're not playing fair. The remainder of that sentence explained why there wasn't a citation.

As per Bohm, the Implicate order is knowable through 'Theory of Everything' -- in principle. Once the Implicate order is known, the explicate can be known. That is what he did by using 'Guide Wave'. But that was not about human society, about which Bohm is close to Schopenhauer.

I don't understand the topic shift; I didn't mention humans at all. :areyoucra

Do you mean to say that these physicists are unaware? Can you cite them when it suits and resort to the razor otherwise?

I cite them when they have more support than mere speculation, i.e. experiment, or failing that, valid maths. Being a physicist does not make one infallible.

It is. Unfortunately I am short on it, especially when same speculation is served as fact again and again.

Imagine there's a notice that says, "since no experiment says otherwise" attached to my posts, then.

 

[Willamena]

You're not playing fair. The remainder of that sentence explained why there wasn't a citation.

I think he meant citation for the suggestion that Schrödinger's geiger counter collapses waveforms?

 

[PolyHedral]

I think he meant citation for the suggestion that Schrödinger's geiger counter collapses waveforms?

Oh, sorry, the next sentence. I don't know that for certain.

 

[atanu]

You're not playing fair. The remainder of that sentence explained why there wasn't a citation.[

What remainder? If no body observed the counter how would anything be known?

Although I edited the citation part, I still prefer a citation that states "Yes, a Geiger Counter collapses the wave function". :beach:

I don't understand the topic shift; I didn't mention humans at all. :areyoucra

So you want a 'Theory of Everything' sans humans? And this thread is about humans -- check the OP please.

I cite them when they have more support than mere speculation, i.e. experiment, or failing that, valid maths. Being a physicist does not make one infallible.

Fully agree.

 

[Mudcat]

Thank you. As we both know, you couldn't help but fail to explain why my analogy is off track or imply I'm at risk of making a fool of myself. However, I'm a brave sort, and in the name of entertainment willing to make a fool of myself, so I await your best shot.

It isn't that the analogy is inexplicably off track on my part, rather I don't see the point in explaining the obvious, nevertheless...

My summation was:


Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Kind of an invalid syllogism; your major premise is missing a predicate. it's like saying

Your analogy of my summary was

.
Premise 1. Horses poop
Premise 1. If horses poop, then they have six legs
Conclusion. Horses have six legs

The fact that horses don't have six legs is patently obvious and generally beyond debate. The actuality of determinism does not meet such a standard. The correlation of a horse pooping as relative to the number of legs a horse has is nonsensical.

If you felt like you wanted to make an adequate analogy regarding horse poop, an actually reasonable comparison would be.

P1.Horses perceives pooping
P2. If horses perceive pooping, then horses poop
C. Horses poop

I do recognize my summary, could have been stated better and could stand for an extra premise or two. But that does not change the fact that your analogy was a satirical but quite incorrect attempt at duplicating it.



​

 

[Skwim]

It isn't that the analogy is inexplicably off track on my part, rather I don't see the point in explaining the obvious, nevertheless...

My summation was:


Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Your analogy of my summary was

The fact that horses don't have six legs is patently obvious and generally beyond debate. The actuality of determinism does not meet such a standard. The correlation of a horse pooping as relative to the number of legs a horse has is nonsensical.

If you felt like you wanted to make an adequate analogy regarding horse poop, an actually reasonable comparison would be.

P1.Horses perceives pooping
P2. If horses perceive pooping, then horses poop
C. Horses poop

I do recognize my summary, could have been stated better and could stand for an extra premise or two. But that does not change the fact that your analogy was a satirical but quite incorrect attempt at duplicating it.​

I thought that by rephrasing your argument using a ridiculous example you would catch on.

In any case, here goes.

Your:

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.
​

Your:

P1.Horses perceives pooping
P2. If horses perceive pooping, then horses poop
C. Horses poop
​

First off, bad logical form aside, as you've put your argument, both of your major premises "We perceive making choices" and "Horses perceives pooping" are irrelevant. You could just as well say:

Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
________________________
Conclusion. We can choose.
​

and

P2. If horses perceive pooping, then horses poop
_______________
C. Horses poop
​

OR . . . . you could have said.

"We perceive making choices, then we can choose."
________________________
Conclusion. We can choose.
​

and

"Horses perceives pooping, then horses poop"
_______________
C. Horses poop
​

It makes no difference.

So what this turns into is an argument of: "if/then/conclusion" "If cats meow then they are alive. They are alive." But because the conclusion is the same as the "then" statement, it means it too is irrelevant. (You've already asserted the fact in your "second" premise) So you end up with the argument:

"If we perceive making choices, then we can choose."
​

and

"If horses perceive pooping, then horses poop."
​

But is this true? If so, then all "if--then" statements must be true as well. "If John F. Kennedy was a Democrat, then I can flap my arms and fly." So obviously the form of your argument is invalid on a formal logical level (syllogistic), and not necessarily true on a simple P-C (Premise, Conclusion) one. So what's the problem? It's the "then" assertion. You assume your "then we can choose" to be true, when in fact that's the very thing you are setting out to prove, which boils down to "we can choose because I say it's true we can choose." That you preface it with an "if" statement doesn't lend it any more credibility then if it stands alone. The simple fact is, I can no more flap my arms and fly than perceiving that we make choices means we can choose.

 

[earlwooters]

And I thought I was incoherent.This debate borders on stupidity.

 

[Skwim]

And I thought I was incoherent.

Hmm. And I thought you were too.

This debate borders on stupidity.

Well, as long as it just borders on it.

 

[atanu]

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Hello Mudcat

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can perceive.
Conclusion. We can perceive.

You can perceive a lamp post as a ghost and cry out in fear but that does not mean that there was a ghost. You can perceive drinking a glass of water in dream, but that would not be waking time water. So, that we can perceive a lot many things only proves that we can perceive. It does not prove that the subject of perception necessarily is true/correct. You can perceive making choices but you may not be making any.

That, IMO, is the subject of OP. Every choice that we seem to make is tied to some pre-dilection of our nature that we are not aware of. And the origin of chain of 'because' goes to the unknown realms. OTOH, in this thread, i have been arguing that it is possible to reach the beginning of the 'because' chain.

 

[Mudcat]

I thought that by rephrasing your argument using a ridiculous example you would catch on.

I appreciate your admission that your example was ridiculous.

I offered my initial statement as a bit of a summary and I have admitted it could have been stated better. I'll try to be more specific, with the caveat that I am no expert in propositional logic and would hope that you can afford some legalistic latitude for the sake of discourse.

That being said, I'll take another run at this for clarity's sake.

Assumption 1: Our perceptions are how we understand reality. Hopefully, we can hold this, at least as an axiom.
Assumption 2a: We do perceive making choices
Assumption 2b: We do perceive we are autonomous
Assumption 2c: We do perceive we are making moral judgments

P1: Our perceptions may or may not be true. i.e.- a person on lsd may perceive things that are occurring, ergo false perception; a person may perceive that after adding two apples to a basket that has two apples they have a basket with four apples, ergo true perception


P2: Perceptions that are commonly held by all are accepted as a true part of reality axiomatically.


We don't usually go about arguing if the sky is blue, if iron bars sink in the bathtub, and that sort of thing. Certainly science may address the notion of why we perceive the sky is blue, or why iron bars don't float in water, but the general impetus isn't to disconfirm our perceptions but rather to explain them.


P3: Our perception that we make choices, are autonomous and make moral judgments is generally accepted true part of reality.


Now I want to be clear that I am not asserting an ad populem fallacy... I mean that the notion that we perceive making choices is independently verifiable by all.. much in the same way that typically all sighted humans see a blue sky.


I am not tossing out something like a “flat earth” notion that was circulating in Copernicus day, but could not actually be verified by any.

P4. Causal determinism would assert that we do not make choices, nor are we autonomous, nor are we capable of making moral judgments.


P5. We do not generally perceive our lack of choice, autonomy or moral responsibility.


Conclusion. Causal determinism is false.


Hopefully we can actually have discourse on the matter and avoid ridiculous caricatures.


Regards


Mudcat

 

[Koldo]

Mudcat:

I will ask you the same question i have asked the other people, and we can start from this point:

By what means do you select between A and B?

 

[Mudcat]

I will ask you the same question i have asked the other people, and we can start from this point:

By what means do you select between A and B?

It depends on what A and B are representative of I suppose. I typically try to reason through my choices.

I think there are instances where A and B are not given any serious logical rigor and could be random selection. In example, A and B being two white t-shirts hanging side by side in my closet.

Some choices I make on impulse, usually to my regret. I suppose in a way, impulse may be a mode to bypass logic, but I dunno.

 

[Koldo]

It depends on what A and B are representative of I suppose. I typically try to reason through my choices.

Yes, that is correct.
You reason through them.

And how do you select between the possible options after reasoning through them if not making use of your will? You just can't, right?

After careful reasoning you may arive upon the best possible choice, but why would you select the best possible choice ( or what you think it is the best possible choice at any given moment ) ? Isn't it because that is you want to do?

If you only make choices according to your will, in accordance to what you want to, then you are forced to act upon it.And if you can not will what you will then you are determined to act based on parameters set by your will.

I think there are instances where A and B are not given any serious logical rigor and could be random selection. In example, A and B being two white t-shirts hanging side by side in my closet.

That is a possibility. Some choices may be made randomly.

 

[Macadam]

Truth is there is not a free will exactly, as it is translated; we have the free will to choose the many different choices of love to create our personality, because the only reason we have a mind like what we have is for us to grow in understanding of God the father's wisdom and knowledge; and that understanding would never give a choice of sin. Think of it like this, God is all powerful and is of only love, so imagine how many ways and choices a God of love can create, knowing how great God is.