Determinism

[maverixk]

Thank you for your input.

I would like to point out that on the scientific side of things that I'm not asking if it's possible to know all the information about every particle in the universe, however, if we did, and we knew how they would all react to each other, could we not then, in theory, predict the future infinitely?

And in the philosophical side, I really don't see why you would separate it from the scientific, as it's the scientific side that would have an impact on the philosophical side. Because, if you knew the location, speed, etc of all the particles, then you could predict exactly what someone were to do, and does that not get you thinking that Free Will, at least how it is commonly thought of, does not truly exist?

[Pineapple]

If there were aliens in that had could travel at the speed of light and back, then we're not hypothesizing for the scientific method anymore.

You assume that everything is a function. Each x input correlates with one and exactly one y output. We can only experience one coordinate (x, y) at a time, but how do you know that there's not another coordinate (x, z) that can be produced with the input of the same x value?

[KeeperofDreams]

Because, if you knew the location, speed, etc of all the particles, then you could predict exactly what someone were to do, and does that not get you thinking that Free Will, at least how it is commonly thought of, does not truly exist?

My point exactly.  The thing is can we know the location of everything at once, (I termed it snapshot.)  According to the schoedinger's cat paradox, we can't get that snapshot without changing it's property.

Each x input correlates with one and exactly one y output. We can only experience one coordinate (x, y) at a time, but how do you know that there's not another coordinate (x, z) that can be produced with the input of the same x value?

The snapshot so to speak, would have to be of (x,y,z,t) not just (x,y); however, correct that if you had another dimension you could.  Hence a 5th dimension, if we could operate at that level...  see time travel thread

[OldTrees]

Each x input correlates with one and exactly one y output. We can only experience one coordinate (x, y) at a time, but how do you know that there's not another coordinate (x, z) that can be produced with the input of the same x value?

The snapshot so to speak, would have to be of (x,y,z,t) not just (x,y); however, correct that if you had another dimension you could.  Hence a 5th dimension, if we could operate at that level...  see time travel thread

You misunderstood. X, Y and Z were not spacial/temporal. They were causal.

F(A) = opening the box "A" located at x₁,y₁,z₁,t₁.
"B" = Observe a dead cat
"C" = Observe a living cat

Since we can only experience 1 result of F(A) [A,B], we cannot test for the possibility of a second possibility [A,C].

[KeeperofDreams]

I was taking the casual and applying spacial temporal.
One is free to take the casual and apply spacial-temporal, just as Bohm did when he postulated the Universe is a Hologram.
(Speaking of see the The Universe is a Hologram Post for the possibility of a way to calculate the second possibility [A,C]).
Also see my rather grammatically poor and over simplified thought experiment on that post as it directly applies to my post here.

[OldTrees]

I was taking the casual and applying spacial temporal.
One is free to take the casual and apply spacial-temporal, just as Bohm did when he postulated the Universe is a Hologram.
(Speaking of see the The Universe is a Hologram Post for the possibility of a way to calculate the second possibility [A,C]).
Also see my rather grammatically poor and over simplified thought experiment on that post as it directly applies to my post here.

Huh?
What is spacial temporal and why can it be applied to causal relationships? If it can result in the observation of both the causal [A,B] and its mutually exclusive partner of [A,C] then can it also be applied to its application and result in the mutually exclusive partner of only observing [A,B] or [A,C]?

[KeeperofDreams]

Oops, misread your statement, Causal as Casual, heh,

Ok, let me try again, because that changes the terming a bit.

Right now, in quantum mechanics the math works at that [A,B] and [A,C] are Causal (working them both out is mutually exclusive as you point out.)

However, there is some evidence this may not be true.  That it in fact could be calculated out as pointed out by the EPR paradox.  Bohm's Theory also points out potential areas where it could also be figured out, and he postulated the Universe is a Hologram.  Not that I fully believe these postulations as far as the fun thoughts that can form it's interesting to entertain.

Because if [A,B] and [A,C] were not Causal, then taking this out to trying to calculate everything that will happen in the universe, and thus proving Free Will does not exist could be done.

[OldTrees]

I must admit Quantum Mechanics are something that always eludes my intuition or understanding.

I will clarify my position so you can attempt to explain yours again.

Lets take the cat experiment again. I have a box with a cat inside. We do not know if this cat is alive or dead. The moment I open the box we receive an output from this unique event even if it is only unique in it time-space coordinates. Repeating the experiment next Tuesday would not be the same event. We observe the cat is alive. How could we ever rule out the possibility that for the same variables (both know and unknown) the cat could have been but was not dead?

Likewise how could we ever learn if that possibility was possible?

Reality as a unit* acts like a function in math. We cannot learn from observing a single function whether or not their exists another function that could have but did not occur.

*If you are inclined to disagree with this guess, try expanding what you are defining as Reality. Multiverse theory does not escape this analogy. (Though whether the analogy is faulty remains to be seen.)

[KeeperofDreams]

<quote>Lets take the cat experiment again. I have a box with a cat inside. We do not know if this cat is alive or dead. The moment I open the box we receive an output from this unique event even if it is only unique in it time-space coordinates. Repeating the experiment next Tuesday would not be the same event. We observe the cat is alive. How could we ever rule out the possibility that for the same variables (both know and unknown) the cat could have been but was not dead?

Reality as a unit* acts like a function in math. We cannot learn from observing a single function whether or not their exists another function that could have but did not occur.</quote>

The cat experiment represents a paradox for measuring things.
The cat in the box represents information, it has a potential of two states, dead or alive.  To actually PROVE the cat is dead or alive, we must lift the box and interact with the cat knowing immediate the state and immediately destroying the potential of the other state.

A similar problem exists in quantum physics, there is a slight difference, but effect is the same
In quantum physics, if have a particle somewhere is particle p, it has a potential of two potential states location and/or direction in a given location of space/time (the difference here is the and/or being it might not have direction, but most likely does).  If you "open the box" and get the location, the direction is immediately changed thus the potential of the other state has been changed or destroyed.  How can you know what the direction?

Granted slightly differences, but you see the point.

Their is a chance, this paradox can be resolved, most likely not, but the FDR Paradox is one example, where on the quantum mechanical level it could be solved.

[Pineapple]

However, there is some evidence this may not be true.  That it in fact could be calculated out as pointed out by the EPR paradox.  Bohm's Theory also points out potential areas where it could also be figured out, and he postulated the Universe is a Hologram.  Not that I fully believe these postulations as far as the fun thoughts that can form it's interesting to entertain.

Because if [A,B] and [A,C] were not Causal, then taking this out to trying to calculate everything that will happen in the universe, and thus proving Free Will does not exist could be done.

Their is a chance, this paradox can be resolved, most likely not, but the FDR Paradox is one example, where on the quantum mechanical level it could be solved.

If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that there's a chance to prove absolute undeniable causality between two events. However, until absolute undeniable causality between two events is proven, the existence of Free Will remains a viable assumption.

[KeeperofDreams]

That's pretty much my point.  Although it may be provable or unprovable through other methods, it depends on how incomplete or incorrect our models are at the very very small and a few other things.

I am just an Engineer and my understanding Quantum Mechanics is on a more applied methods, so there are many gaps in my knowledge and understanding.  However, I can usually understand what the Theoretical Physicists are doing, and I have befriended one who has a very very interesting body of work that he is publishing in three journals soon.  He promised me a copy of it.

But from what I have read of it, it appears he has a new model of applied calculus that looks at the potential and not the kinect side of physics.  It from what I have seen of the equations, many of the unknowns drop away...  Image when applying to very small scales the integration does not come up with a + some unknown value.  I am really really really curious to see the whole thing to see if what I think that means is true, and if many of these odd little paradoxes drop away or not once applied to some thought processes.  I know many of the recent discoveries has delayed the publishing, as things like the evidence and proof that the universe is accelerating he had to verify his model still held and do the proof which he said it still does.  It also needs all the peer review, etc, etc...  I am almost vibrating at the implications and I think my imagination has carried me off to impossibilities... 

[gnslinger]

If i can but in for a minute.
In a example: If a soldier come back from active service having accidentally shot an innocent civillian and wonders if he could repeate the moment would he still act in the same way.
If I understand then if it is free will then it stands to reason that if it was his choice to start with the he would react in the same way because that is who he is and that is just how he would react meaning that it is irrelevant wether or not it is actually free will he would act in the same way regardless.