20 Apr 16
Originally posted by apathistJust having a bit of fun here, but it's always interesting to watch wrangling over the meaning of free will (what it is and isn't).
Oh, that one's a pot-head. All puffing and day-glo.
The word 'knowledge' is meaningless unless there is a conscious entity that can identify something as being knowledge. I can agree with this because knowledge (knowing) is a conscious mind contruct... dead leaves blowing in the wind do not acquire knowledge, and consciously make decisions based on that knowledge. We (humans) on the other hand can choose to go with or against the flow, move with or against the wind.. whereas an inanimate object has no 'choice', it can only react to whatever force is acting on it. So I think it's possible to identify free will by simply taking note of where reactions do not match up with actions (forces acting on an object).
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by apathistThe thing you call a "conceit" in your last sentence is what happens in MWI. You've phrased it badly, since after the split they cease to be "us". It's not clear to me why you think that "that ship sank".
They absolutely did not exist prior to divergence. I have explained how we know that. But that issue is irrelevant to the op.
When a divergence occurs, why did we find ourselves in one particular branch - was that a necessary outcome? Was it impossible that we may have found ourselves in some other branch? (thx, tw). Was is the deterministic explanation ...[text shortened]... b.
Besides the conceit that hey, the path b guys are us too. That ship sank, so try harder.
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by lemon limeSo I think it's possible to identify free will by simply taking note of where reactions do not match up with actions (forces acting on an object).
Just having a bit of fun here, but it's always interesting to watch wrangling over the meaning of free will (what it is and isn't).
The word 'knowledge' is meaningless unless there is a conscious entity that can identify something as being knowledge. I can agree with this because knowledge (knowing) is a conscious mind contruct... dead leaves blowing i ...[text shortened]... simply taking note of where reactions do not match up with actions (forces acting on an object).
What?
20 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAfter the split they were created for the very first time. They were never us. We are us. We have no virtual infinity of multiple inter-dimensional minds inhabiting our bodies before the split. We are just regular people. Maybe they were copied somehow from the template we provide (they "split" from us) but they did not exist before their own universe began to exist!
... after the split they cease to be "us". ...".
20 Apr 16
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistI hadn't noticed you asking me anything before now. I have repeatedly said in another thread there cannot ever be evidence of true randomness even if there exists true randomness + explanation of why.
I've asked you a question based on your own response, several times. I thought it was a good, useful, interesting question. Have you not seen it?
20 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI admit I've missed alot, but thank you for repeating. What in the worlds (< get it?) make you think that something could be real but leave no possible evidence? I call bs.
I have repeatedly said there cannot ever be evidence of true randomness even if there exists true randomness.
Anyway, since you cannot imagine that evidence could possibly exist that determinism is false, I'd say that makes you intellectually unreasonable.
Hey, that wasn't especially an insult. You're in a boat with Einstein and twhitehead. I love Einstein.
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by lemon limeSurfing. Horseback riding. The power of nature is overwhelming but we can apply a tiny bit of control which can make all the difference.
Just having a bit of fun here, but it's always interesting to watch wrangling over the meaning of free will (what it is and isn't).
The word 'knowledge' is meaningless unless there is a conscious entity that can identify something as being knowledge. I can agree with this because knowledge (knowing) is a conscious mind contruct... dead leaves blowing i ...[text shortened]... simply taking note of where reactions do not match up with actions (forces acting on an object).
20 Apr 16
4 edits
Originally posted by apathist
I admit I've missed alot, but thank you for repeating. What in the worlds (< get it?) make you think that something could be real but leave no possible evidence? I call bs.
Anyway, since you cannot imagine that evidence could possibly exist that determinism is false, I'd say that makes you intellectually unreasonable.
What in the worlds (< get it?) make you think that something could be real but leave no possible evidence?
As I explained before in another thread, true randomness means outcomes without a cause whether that be no hidden and unknown cause or be no visible and known cause. So for there to be evidence of true randomness there has to be evidence that, for at least one outcome, there is NO cause, not even a HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause. Can you give me any hypothetical example of evidence that there is NO HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause for some outcome? How would such evidence indicate the NONE existence of a HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause?
you cannot imagine that evidence could possibly exist that determinism is false,
Just like I cannot imagine a square triangle. I challenge you to give me just ANY one hypothetical example for one's imagination of evidence that determinism is false i.e. evidence that, for at least one outcome, there is NO cause including NO HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause for it...
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtLoL
[b]So I think it's possible to identify free will by simply taking note of where reactions do not match up with actions (forces acting on an object).
What?[/b]
Oh come on... there must be some way of identifying free will we can all agree with. Otherwise this entire discussion is a free for all, with everyone operating under their own particular definition of 'determinism'.
And I don't see how 'randomness' factors into any of this... anything that doesn't follow (or fits into) a definable pattern can be deemed 'random'. Randomness (like knowledge) is in the mind of the beholder.
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by humyFirst, what makes you think that randomness (probability) implies a lack of causation? Because it absolutely does not.
[b]What in the worlds (< get it?) make you think that something could be real but leave no possible evidence?
As I explained before in another thread, true randomness means outcomes without a cause whether that cause be hidden or unknown or visible and known....
Second, wtf are non-existent but hidden causes? That is lousy explanation, your actual meaning is too ambiguous to decipher.
Slow down, take a breath, empty your cup, speak carefully. Please.
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by humy...true randomness means outcomes without a cause whether that cause be hidden or unknown or visible and known.What in the worlds (< get it?) make you think that something could be real but leave no possible evidence?
As I explained before in another thread, true randomness means outcomes without a cause whether that cause be hidden or unknown or visible and known. So for there to be evidence of true randomness there has to be evidence that, for at ...[text shortened]... hat, for at least one outcome, there is NO cause including NO HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause for it...
Bingo! Not knowing or seeing a cause is not a good reason for saying something is random... it would be better (more accurate) to say 'appears to be' rather than 'is' random.
20 Apr 16
6 edits
Originally posted by apathist
First, what makes you think that randomness (probability) implies a lack of causation? Because it absolutely does not.
Second, wtf are non-existent but hidden causes? That is lousy explanation, your actual meaning is too ambiguous to decipher.
Slow down, take a breath, empty your cup, speak carefully. Please.
what makes you think that randomness (probability) implies a lack of causation?
I don't think this which is why I referred to 'true' randomness as in randomness of causeless outcomes as opposed to the more generic meaning of just the word 'randomness' which doesn't imply causeless outcomes (or at least not in particular).
Second, wtf are non-existent but hidden causes?
I never implied this and I would think that was obvious.
Can you give me any hypothetical example of evidence that would indicate there is NO cause, not even a HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause, for some outcome?
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by humyNo. Say again: no. Events are caused. Are you absolutely addicted to the idea that at the start of our universe, your very next actions are predicated?
Can you give me any hypothetical example of evidence that would indicate there is NO cause, not even a HIDDEN and UNKNOWN cause, for some outcome?[/b]
21 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistNo, this seems to be your basic misunderstanding. Both entities have continuity. We don't provide a template for them and they don't for us. To get this you need to look at the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, it's a matter of how the wavefunction is partitioned, it's not a physical copying in the way you seem to think it is.
After the split they were created for the very first time. They were never us. [b]We are us. We have no virtual infinity of multiple inter-dimensional minds inhabiting our bodies before the split. We are just regular people. Maybe they were copied somehow from the template we provide (they "split" from us) but they did not exist before their own universe began to exist![/b]
Edit: The following isn't right, it's not what happens, but it's closer to what MWI is saying than what you seem to think is happening. As long as you get your head around the notion that there isn't a preferred copy, which is what you seem to think. Every time a quantum event happens the universe is instantly destroyed and we all die. We are reborn twice over, one seeing the up state and one the down state (or whatever the quantum number being measured is).