Regarding Franko...

[hammegk]

The reason QM came up at all was because certain individuals were claiming that the Universe was purely deterministic.

And if you are not one of them, how do you avoid that position and arrive at free will as a Materialist? Do you have any answer?

Again I ask: Do you actually have a reason to believe that the Universe is deterministic? Do you have a deterministic and causal alternative to QM? Or does it merely clash with your curtains?

Even as a non-materialist, I have great difficulty escaping the thought that complete determinacy is the most logical conclusion.

Again, QM is some current human math that may (or may not) have any relationship to cause & effect as TLOP actually works. No, I'm afraid I will not be winning a Nobel, as I have no replacement theory, nor do I expect to. That is neither here nor there regarding the question of (non-random) free will.

 

[Tricky]

Again, QM is some current human math that may (or may not) have any relationship to cause & effect as TLOP actually works.

Um... no. It is physics, not math. And it has been experimentally verified countless times. And it has a great deal to do with how TLOP work, in fact, it is part of TLOP.

Please, Ham. This is unlike you to post this way. I echo Hal's sentiments. Let's all play nice. You too, Fool.

 

[The Fool]

Let's remember to play nice everyone

Ok Hal, not a problem. Is it ok now for me to start using the term "◊◊◊◊◊◊" now? I have explained on numerous occasions to Hammegk the offensive nature of the word "Abo" to Black Australians. He simply delights in continuing to use it. I know I shouldn't expect anything different from Racist garbage but what about the mods on this forum? Are you happy to allow racial taunts to go unchallanged? If you are willing to ignore this then you are complicit to racism.

It should be made absolutely clear to racists that thier rhetoric is unwelcome on this board....do your job.

 

[PixyMisa]

And if you are not one of them, how do you avoid that position and arrive at free will as a Materialist? Do you have any answer?

Yes: There is no problem. The indeterminism of the physical world poses no problems for free will.

Even as a non-materialist, I have great difficulty escaping the thought that complete determinacy is the most logical conclusion.

Well, our current theories and collected evidence say that you're wrong.

Again, QM is some current human math that may (or may not) have any relationship to cause & effect as TLOP actually works.

The evidence that it is correct is extremely strong. QM has been verified with great accuracy in a huge number of experiments.

No, I'm afraid I will not be winning a Nobel, as I have no replacement theory, nor do I expect to. That is neither here nor there regarding the question of (non-random) free will.

Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis. Which is good enough for most things. It's a major problem for the future of the silicon chip, though: things can't get much smaller before the effects of QM start making serious trouble.

 

[Soubrette]

I'm having huge problems trying to get my head round this Misa

You have said before that "The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct." At least I'm assuming this - it's in someone's sig somewhere

But then you're saying that "Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis." You go on to say this is good enough for most things.

So are you saying that there are some things that do not follow rules? And if so isn't that a problem for Materialism?

Thanks

Sou

 

[wraith]

You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will

How about it sockpuppet...which of these two statements is correct and which one did your master say? or did he say both? How do you link them together?...

stay away from free will son, it has proved to be the downfall of your cult.

Did you actually read the quote and understand it?

You can reach a point where you are "more aware" and make a "choice" which is more of a "choice" compared to choosing what youre going to have for breakfast....


However, youre still bound to Fate

Hey Fool, we can see through your little fireworks display. I know that you hate the idea of Fate...You cling to free-willy like a kid clinging onto his cot when faced with a bed...

 

[wraith]

No. The second is the definition of free will. The first is merely a fact.

do you function via MPB?

 

[wraith]

Let's remember to play nice everyone

screw that

 

[wraith]

things can't get much smaller before the effects of QM start making serious trouble.

Fool seems to have no trouble at all when he goes for a slash...

 

[PixyMisa]

do you function via MPB?

I have free will. MPB is free will. See the Banana Pancakes and the Fork of Doom.

 

[wraith]

you really are a looney toon

 

[Tricky]

I'm having huge problems trying to get my head round this Misa

You have said before that "The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct." At least I'm assuming this - it's in someone's sig somewhere

But then you're saying that "Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis." You go on to say this is good enough for most things.

So are you saying that there are some things that do not follow rules? And if so isn't that a problem for Materialism?

Thanks

Sou

If I may be so rude as to answer a question asked of someone else, I think what PixyMisa is saying is that the world operates within the laws of physics and that these things are experimentally verifiable. QM is also experimentally verifiable, but its effects are microscopic in scale, so it is unlikely that you will observe them unless you are working at microscopic scales.

By analogy, if you look through a piece of window glass, it appears transparant, but if you get very close, you can see tiny inclusions and flaws. These do not impair the use of the glass as window glass, they would be a big problem if you tried to use the same glass to make tiny lenses.

PM notes later that if we try to get silicon chips much smaller (they are already damn near microscopic) they will be hindered by the non-deterministic nature of QM. This is something I had not heard. If it is true, then this forum has once again provided me with interesting and potentially useful information.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm having huge problems trying to get my head round this Misa

You have said before that "The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct." At least I'm assuming this - it's in someone's sig somewhere

But then you're saying that "Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis." You go on to say this is good enough for most things.

So are you saying that there are some things that do not follow rules? And if so isn't that a problem for Materialism?

It's a good question, Sou.

The answer is that "non-deterministic" doesn't mean that there are no rules. While we cannot know, for example, both the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle, we do have a rule - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that tells us just what knowledge we can have, and how the precision of our knowledge of one property relates to the possible precision of our knowledge of the other.

Similarly, nuclear decay is acausal. Though we have theories that can tell us which isotopes are likely to decay and what their decay processes and half-lives are likely to be, there is no way to tell when a given atom will decay. However, given a sufficient quantity of atoms - say, a picogram - we can predict to very high precision just how many of those atoms will be left after any (reasonable) length of time.

 

[Guest]

So Pixy you are saying....

Things either follow the rules, or they are random. Is that right?

i.e. At no point does the human mind manage to transcend determinism and randomness.

 

[PixyMisa]

PM notes later that if we try to get silicon chips much smaller (they are already damn near microscopic) they will be hindered by the non-deterministic nature of QM. This is something I had not heard. If it is true, then this forum has once again provided me with interesting and potentially useful information.

In fact, the details of the circuits on a chip are already sub-microscopic - they are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. The violet end of the visible spectrum is about 400 nanometres (nm), and current chips are made with features as small as 130nm. Expect to see 90nm chips out later this year. Oh yeah, chipmaking equipment uses ultraviolet light, which is why they can get away with this.

I'll see if I can dig out a good paper on the limits of chip shrinkage. Currently optimists think we should be able to get to 10nm before things fall apart; the pessimists say we'll be lucky to reach 30nm. The various limiting factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to QM; there are some other issues like design complexity and economics that also raise their heads.

 

[whitefork]

PixyMisa, couple questions:

Does the decay of a radioactive atom require some form of activation energy from somewhere else?

and

If you can completely isolate a given atom from the outside world (which you can't), than, in theory, would it remain in its current quantum state indefinitely?

thank you

 

[MRC_Hans]

My POV:

So Pixy you are saying....

Things either follow the rules, or they are random. Is that right?

i.e. At no point does the human mind manage to transcend determinism and randomness.

Things follow rules, period. Randomness is part of the rules.

Depends on whether the human mind is a "thing". I assume it is, but I do not have knowledge.

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

So Pixy you are saying....

Things either follow the rules, or they are random. Is that right?

No.

What I'm saying is that even in randomness there are rules.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle always applies. The rate of nuclear decay in any sufficiently large sample of an isotope is always the same - to a degree of precision limited by the sample size and the period of time being studied. Where there are limits to the precision of knowledge, we know what these limits are and how they apply.

i.e. At no point does the human mind manage to transcend determinism and randomness.

Well, the materialist point of view is that the human mind arises from matter is not transcendent in any literal sense, and I agree with that.

Remember too that the mind is information, and is one step removed from direct application of the laws of physics.

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa, couple questions:

Does the decay of a radioactive atom require some form of activation energy from somewhere else?

and

If you can completely isolate a given atom from the outside world (which you can't), than, in theory, would it remain in its current quantum state indefinitely?

thank you

Perhaps someone like Stimpson or Zombified could give you more details, but the answers are:

No.

and

Ugh. Independent of everything else, an atom will remain an evolving wave function, a superposition of states that never collapses into anything definite.

 

[Tricky]

In fact, the details of the circuits on a chip are already sub-microscopic - they are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. The violet end of the visible spectrum is about 400 nanometres (nm), and current chips are made with features as small as 130nm. Expect to see 90nm chips out later this year. Oh yeah, chipmaking equipment uses ultraviolet light, which is why they can get away with this.

I'll see if I can dig out a good paper on the limits of chip shrinkage. Currently optimists think we should be able to get to 10nm before things fall apart; the pessimists say we'll be lucky to reach 30nm. The various limiting factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to QM; there are some other issues like design complexity and economics that also raise their heads.

Thanks Misa. Using your terminology, I have Googled this very helpful (and reasonbly un-technical) paper.
Microchip manufacture