|
I'd say that one can also just live life with the idea of there not being free will. Causality explains more about how people work.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Modern physics says the universe is hard probabilistic and quantum events are truly random, thus determinism is an illusion and a shortcut. "No hidden variables" has been tested and thus far it's held up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Quick someone explain why hard determinism precludes free will in the first place. Hint: it does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
I always thought people telling me Free Will doesn't exist must suffer from sort of brain damage. Luckily they can't object to this opinion, since I don't have free will and the universe forces me to mock them! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
The existence or lack thereof of freewill doesn't stop posts on the internet, it merely recontextualizes a small portion of why they are posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Quick someone explain why hard determinism precludes free will in the first place. Hint: it does not. Hard determinism does preclude free will, by definition. The problem is that people want to declare that the universe is run by hard determinism, but have nowhere near enough information to make that claim (is likely a form of soft determinism.) The issue usually boils down to competing, usually undescribed, versions of what ‘free will’ means. If you take it to mean that you’re 100% free of all outside influence, then yeah of course. Nobody has free will. If you take it to mean that you’re able to make some decisions within the narrow context of the reality that surrounds you, then it becomes obvious that it does exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
On one of the keynotes I've been to (the time I've met Penrose actually) we talked about determinism, and there were mathematical arguments that basically mean "if there is even the slightest bit of randomness in the universe, it is not hard deterministic in general". I'll try to find it tomorrow maybe, but if I'm remembering it right, then in most current interpretations of quantum mechanics determinism does not hold. Of course, there are interpretations where it would (hidden variables etc). e; Penrose himself is of the opinion that we possess free will thanks to quantum processes, though it's a bit of his maverick mumbo-jumbo he likes to partake in dex_sda fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Hard determinism does preclude free will, by definition. Anyway, I subscribe to compatibilism, if that wasn't obvious 
MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Dec 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:e; Penrose himself is of the opinion that we possess free will thanks to quantum processes, though it's a bit of his maverick mumbo-jumbo he likes to partake in
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Personally I subscribe to cannibalism. Anyway, for those of you who were confused about how FTL violates causality, it probably wouldn't in obvious ways just put putting around the solar system. However reference frames can differ on order of events and this becomes a problem if they can interact both slowly at a distance and instantly by FTL. Then you can get issues like Kirk and the Klingons using warp and high speed to see what the other is going to do before they do it, leading to a causality shambles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Modern physics says the universe is hard probabilistic and quantum events are truly random, thus determinism is an illusion and a shortcut. "No hidden variables" has been tested and thus far it's held up. Only electrons have free will. Everything else is at the mercy of their free will. Arglebargle III posted:Personally I subscribe to cannibalism. Anyway, for those of you who were confused about how FTL violates causality, it probably wouldn't in obvious ways just put putting around the solar system. However reference frames can differ on order of events and this becomes a problem if they can interact both slowly at a distance and instantly by FTL. Then you can get issues like Kirk and the Klingons using warp and high speed to see what the other is going to do before they do it, leading to a causality shambles. It would be obvious, though, because going FTL would do bizarre poo poo like create copies of the space ship doing it that lands before it takes off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:If I'm not mistaken most of that has been disproven and he's back off it a bit? Only remember what he said a couple years ago, not sure now btw if we're tagging ourselves I'm a "too little information to tell" guy. From a "true" free will outlook, if universe is deterministic, it doesn't exist. If it isn't, it can. But we don't know what's behind the quantum mechanics we see, so no way to tell. Pretty cut and dry. Call me an agnostic here I guess. From a philosophical standpoint, it's murkier, as first of all, our choices are obviously the result of our circumstances, so you're never fully in control in that way. But, on the other hand, does it even matter whether free will is an illusion or not? I may play at being a philosopher sometimes, but I am not equipped to go down this path much deeper. I guess if I had to go with my gut on this, I'd be partial to this post here: ashpanash posted:The problem, I think, is that we all have this idea of 'free will' as being some sort of all-powerful acausal action, created from nothingness, that endows us with the ability to make decisions regardless of our circumstances, environment, and current conditions. That, of course, is silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 11:17
|
|
|
Free will is decoupled from determinism because a non deterministic random universe would also not mean you have free will. Dice rolls and coin tosses aren't free will, and the debate over it comes from before the existence of modern physics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 11:43
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Free will is decoupled from determinism because a non deterministic random universe would also not mean you have free will. Dice rolls and coin tosses aren't free will, and the debate over it comes from before the existence of modern physics. I know what you mean, my point is that physically true free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe. Of course, that has no bearing on whether the concept of free will is meaningful and other philosophical and metaphysical considerations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
It also can't exist in a random universe by the same logic. The binary of random or ordered physics does not really illuminate the argument over free will in any meaningful manner. If I lived in a hard reductive deterministed universe, but had a magical random number generator that broke the physics of said universe to actually be random, I could not use it to make all my decisions and have that be free will. Neither Probability nor Deterministic Progression is an exercise of free will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 12:05
|
|
|
sounds like you should just try harder if you don’t have free will imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
LtStorm posted:Only electrons have free will. Everything else is at the mercy of their free will. Nah, there are no frames of reference different enough to disagree on order of events in the solar system. You could get a ship arriving before a radio message of it leaving arrives, but you couldn't get a ship arriving before a radio message to summon it from another planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 12:24
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Modern physics says the universe is hard probabilistic and quantum events are truly random, thus determinism is an illusion and a shortcut. "No hidden variables" has been tested and thus far it's held up. I like the idea that our universe started as hard deterministic until sentient life evolved at which point it switched to probabilistic. Maybe dark matter/energy is just the result of this. If life evolved early enough wouldn't it be possible that billions of years down the road the reason the universe isn't matching our expected results is because of life itself throwing it off the expected deterministic path? I don't know if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Unless your making a joke at the expense of humanity (a time honored tradition), I really don't see anything about us that would cause that. As it is, would you rather do things for no reason, or for reasons? Determinism doesn't stop you from doing what you want to, it just says you do them for reasons. If you want to do good things for the world and those you care for, then go forth and do them, nothing can stop you but yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Quantum physicists wrestled with this problem in the early 20th century and it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the universe is random at a fine enough level. They tried, because a lot of religious scientist did not like that answer. For example Boltzman tried very hard to avoid statistical mechanics in his description of particle behavior but in the end that was the only math that worked. Not sure why you're rehashing this here. Something about free will? This epic quote from the first lines of a textbook is worth posting: D. L. Goodstein posted:Ludwig Boltzman, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics. Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
That's a Boltzmann galaxy-brain idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Nah, there are no frames of reference different enough to disagree on order of events in the solar system. You could get a ship arriving before a radio message of it leaving arrives, but you couldn't get a ship arriving before a radio message to summon it from another planet. No you don't understand; if a ship leaves a launch pad on Earth to travel to a landing pad on another planet at FTL speeds and back, three images of that ship are going to be visible to observers on Earth until light works everything out at light speed. We are all understating how bizarre the implications of a ship moving at FTL would be. Arglebargle III posted:Quantum physicists wrestled with this problem in the early 20th century and it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the universe is random at a fine enough level. They tried, because a lot of religious scientist did not like that answer. For example Boltzman tried very hard to avoid statistical mechanics in his description of particle behavior but in the end that was the only math that worked. Not sure why you're rehashing this here. Something about free will? As I said before, only electrons have free will. Everything else is at their mercy. Also to bring things down for a moment; that book intro is utterly hilarious, but Boltzmann and Ehrenfest both came to pretty tragic ends due in big part to bad mental health. Boltzmann was known to be manic-depressive his entire life and committed suicide when he realized he was coming down with dementia. Ehrenfest had pretty severe depression and a son with Down's which lead him to kill his son and himself because it was 1933 and they lived in Germany. LtStorm fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
LtStorm posted:No you don't understand; if a ship leaves a launch pad on Earth to travel to a landing pad on another planet at FTL speeds and back, three images of that ship are going to be visible to observers on Earth until light works everything out at light speed. We are all understating how bizarre the implications of a ship moving at FTL would be. No, you don't understand. The ship can precede its own image, sure. What it can't do is arrive before it was called for, which is the sort of thing that FTL can accomplish in different enough reference frames. That kind of disagreement on order of events, where the call to the ship is still in the future when the ship arrives, cannot happen for anything hanging out at 30 km/s relative velocity in the solar system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:No, you don't understand. The ship can precede its own image, sure. What it can't do is arrive before it was called for, which is the sort of thing that FTL can accomplish in different enough reference frames. That kind of disagreement on order of events, where the call to the ship is still in the future when the ship arrives, cannot happen for anything hanging out at 30 km/s relative velocity in the solar system. there are no privileged frames of reference. if the light from the ship landing on the planet arrives before the light from the ship in transit, the ship landed on the planet before it was travelling to the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Solar System content: Asteroids Black Hole (Maybe, Best Event Hopefully) A Metal Hydrogen Factory called Jupiter A Hematite Ball called Mercury Venus, Earth JR with human purple skin DLC unlockable Neptune the Ice Compressor Uranus the titanium rock holder We fuckin' don't need any more planets to do enough science to last us a few million years We have the hardest stone, the hardest metal, and the most tightly compacted ice type ever. We can do it all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:there are no privileged frames of reference. Sounds more like an image of the ship landing arrives before the ship launched, which is weird sure, but odd future visions seems like a thing that could exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
space is where most of stuff is
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Sounds more like an image of the ship landing arrives before the ship launched, which is weird sure, but odd future visions seems like a thing that could exist. how about images arrive to the launch point in the wrong order because you go between your destination and your launch point Observational science no longer works and we suddenly know nothing about the universe. FTL is nonsense
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:how about images arrive to the launch point in the wrong order because you go between your destination and your launch point If we can move at FTL-speeds we can also observe what happens at FTL-speeds, even if we have to send small drones with FTL-drive at first before we learn to use our FTL-tech for communication. I think this thread is convincing me more and more that FTL is possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If we can move at FTL-speeds we can also observe what happens at FTL-speeds, even if we have to send small drones with FTL-drive at first before we learn to use our FTL-tech for communication. Then you should reread it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:there are no privileged frames of reference. That's not a causality violation, light from things reaching our eyes doesn't cause the ship to be in any particular place. A causality violation is when you call the space ambulance to treat your bullet wound and it arrives before you get shot in the first place. In reality, that only happens due to time dilation between the pre-FTL travel event frames of reference, and nothing in the solar system is moving at relativistic speeds, so it's moot. Not every part of an FTL light cone violates causality, but the little sliver that does still does, even if there are no witnesses that exist in it. Then again, there are subatomic particles moving that fast, so if their reference frames are relevant, causality is violated by the FTL. Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:there are no privileged frames of reference. Please at least read an article on special relativity before weighing in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Faster than light travel is impossible in much the same way that slower than light travel is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
If FTL is possible then there are reference frames where the thing that is caused by something else, happens before the something else. Not that the light from the thing reaches you first, or anything like that (didn't I already cover this?) but actually happens first. As in, even if you account for the time it takes the light to reach you, you will still determine that the event preceded its cause. Not only that, but there are other reference frames where this didn't happen - in other words, two observers in different reference frames will not agree on the order in which two causally-related events occur. Now, that's a paradox. But I suppose you can hand wave it away with some many-worlds woo where you're just splitting the universe each time this paradox happens (note: I subscribe to many-worlds, but its application here is woo). I mean there are many other pseudo-scientific ways to rationalize this paradox: none of them actually make sense, but I don't suppose that's going to stop this thread with the way things are going. But, the paradox is not the reason that we say that FTL is impossible - rather, the paradox is the consequence of supposing that you do something that's actually physical nonsense. The actual reason that FTL is impossible is along the lines of what Arglebargle III is going on about, and while I know I am screaming into the wind here I suggest anyone who's honestly curious about this take him up on his suggestion to at least read an article on special relativity. Honestly curious is important, here. You have to actually give a poo poo about learning the way the world works, as opposed to looking for the one weird trick that's going to allow you to continue believing that Star Trek is Real Life. MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
CAROL posted:space is where most of stuff is What im trying to relay is we have every planet type omaginable that isnt horrible. Aka a magnatar (not a planet i know!) In our local solar system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:What im trying to relay is we have every planet type omaginable that isnt horrible. Aka a magnatar (not a planet i know!) In our local solar system. There are some that think we live on such a unique once in a loving infinite chance of happening scenario solar system that it's really not hard to imagine there being no other life in the Galaxy, potentially universe. We have small planets close in, big planets in the middle, and medium planets on the outside. Our small rocky planet has one of the largest moons in the solar system somehow. Oh yeah, and there may be a super earth sized snow ball way out past Pluto, and maybe even a primordial black hole (extremely unlikely but fun) Then again our understanding of systems beyond our own is in its extreme infancy still. Who knows what's normal until we have a bigger sample size.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:There are some that think we live on such a unique once in a loving infinite chance of happening scenario solar system that it's really not hard to imagine there being no other life in the Galaxy, potentially universe. A black hole woupd be the best thing to happen to the humans who figure out how to stop it from annihilating their civilization every 20,000 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Is there a pretty good chance that the predicted super-earth-mass object out in our solar system is really a thing and not an error in reading the data?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Is there a pretty good chance that the predicted super-earth-mass object out in our solar system is really a thing and not an error in reading the data? The data is indicative of something possibly sheparding some kuiper belt objects into similarly distorted orbits, but it's hardly conclusive. Until they find it, or more direct evidence of it, it's a small chance that is fun to think about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Is there a pretty good chance that the predicted super-earth-mass object out in our solar system is really a thing and not an error in reading the data? Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The data is indicative of something possibly sheparding some kuiper belt objects into similarly distorted orbits, but it's hardly conclusive. Yeah, the specific thing we know is that the objects in the Kuiper belt move with complexities we don't understand. As far as we are sure of they're all smaller than planets, yet they move as a group like something with a much greater mass is out there. We don't know why yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 00:07
|
|