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.Would you like to start one?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.Would you like to start one?
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.
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.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.
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.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:
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.A Geiger Counter is observed and is not an observer
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 does imply determinism at explicate level. But not at Implicate-wholeness level.
Quantum mechanics itself is not capable of making statements about consciousness, andBohm 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).
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Oops, that'll teach me to use a metaphor on the internet.
Reading that, I do not like Bohm's philosophy.
In Copenhagen QM, a geiger counter is almost certainly an observer,
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.
But the physicists say so wearing their philosopher hat. ---- Since, AFAIK, Occam's Razor has never failed, ----
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.
We just keep poking and proding and finding better ways to test and measure it.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?
You're not playing fair. The remainder of that sentence explained why there wasn't a citation.Citation?
I don't understand the topic shift; I didn't mention humans at all. :areyoucraAs 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 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.Do you mean to say that these physicists are unaware? Can you cite them when it suits and resort to the razor otherwise?
Imagine there's a notice that says, "since no experiment says otherwise" attached to my posts, then.It is. Unfortunately I am short on it, especially when same speculation is served as fact again and again.
I think he meant citation for the suggestion that Schrödinger's geiger counter collapses waveforms?You're not playing fair. The remainder of that sentence explained why there wasn't a citation.
Oh, sorry, the next sentence. I don't know that for certain.I think he meant citation for the suggestion that Schrödinger's geiger counter collapses waveforms?
You're not playing fair. The remainder of that sentence explained why there wasn't a citation.[
I don't understand the topic shift; I didn't mention humans at all. :areyoucra
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 isn't that the analogy is inexplicably off track on my part, rather I don't see the point in explaining the obvious, nevertheless...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.
skwim said:Kind of an invalid syllogism; your major premise is missing a predicate. it's like saying
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.Skwim said:.
Premise 1. Horses poop
Premise 1. If horses poop, then they have six legs
Conclusion. Horses have six legs
I thought that by rephrasing your argument using a ridiculous example you would catch on.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.
Hmm. And I thought you were too.And I thought I was incoherent.
Well, as long as it just borders on it.This debate borders on stupidity.
Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.
I appreciate your admission that your example was ridiculous.I thought that by rephrasing your argument using a ridiculous example you would catch on.
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 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.