Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Your Aversion To Determinism Is Itself Predetermined

Results 1 to 31 of 31

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Hmm.

    quantum probability (if that's a phrase) is being posited as a potential source of freewill.

    If there is anything acting on matter/energy wave/particles, then QM has some predictions to make about it. IF those predictions don't need to be altered AND free will exists, THEN sure, the quirkiness of quarks is likely the cause, BUT, that means free will does not mean an ability to change particle interactions. So if we can't affect anything on the smallest scales, then what is free will? That's a new question, not the original question.


    If you need to reach outside of the quarks doing quirky things to say that some other phenomenon is influencing the probability of which quirky thing they do

    We don't; every known experiment is in line with the current theory. There is no need to invoke any further axioms to explain the current data (for physics in brains... not quantum-relativistic stuff). If new data comes to light, then we'll re-evaluate at that time, but whatever new discovery needs to be explained can't change the current data. The current data is showing no evidence that QM is incorrect (incomplete, but nowhere incorrect). Whatever new data comes to light cannot change how minimal the effect could possibly be, as indicated by pre-existing data.
  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Hmm.

    quantum probability (if that's a phrase) is being posited as a potential source of freewill.

    If there is anything acting on matter/energy wave/particles, then QM has some predictions to make about it. IF those predictions don't need to be altered AND free will exists, THEN sure, the quirkiness of quarks is likely the cause, BUT, that means free will does not mean an ability to change particle interactions. So if we can't affect anything on the smallest scales, then what is free will? That's a new question, not the original question.


    If you need to reach outside of the quarks doing quirky things to say that some other phenomenon is influencing the probability of which quirky thing they do

    We don't; every known experiment is in line with the current theory. There is no need to invoke any further axioms to explain the current data (for physics in brains... not quantum-relativistic stuff). If new data comes to light, then we'll re-evaluate at that time, but whatever new discovery needs to be explained can't change the current data. The current data is showing no evidence that QM is incorrect (incomplete, but nowhere incorrect). Whatever new data comes to light cannot change how minimal the effect could possibly be, as indicated by pre-existing data.
    Ok, yeah, now I'm really lost. I think we might be talking passed each other.

    Do you think there is freewill or not, and if so, from where do you think it arises?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •