How much do genetics make a difference?

[Birdjaguar]

We all have to operate under some assumptions regardless of what is true, or if we don't know the truth. For practical reasons I choose to think that I choose my sandwich. the truth of it is only interesting from a meta level.

Aha,,,
Let me translate that: I reject your reasoning for the sake of what I like. Also, your reasoning is useless.

It is not.
Our whole system of morality actually assumes a freedom of will. If that freedom of will was recognized as fictional, that would not destroy this system. But it would improve it.
Because while still demanding personal responsibility, we would not do it for its own sake, which is where the stupid starts.

The impact of free will/no free will has far greater impact than just on morality and justice.

Through your lens, you had no choice but to mis translate my post into something other than what it was.

Before I push further into this, I need to understand what you mean free will, choice, predetermined, lack of free will etc.
In your mind, how are the simple, everyday actions, we all perform determined?
What we eat, what we say.
Whether we speak our minds to someone or keep silent.
Who we smile at or allow into traffic.
Etc.

What is the mechanism(s) at work?

 

[Honor]

For me it is simple deterministic causality. Since everything follows from whatever happened before, so do we. So do our thoughts and feelings. If we were to rewind time to 5 minutes before, there is no reason for things to play out any differently during these 5 minutes because the initial conditions are the same. Even though we cannot measure the position and velocity of all particles at time t-5, deterministic causality we observe at the macro scale dictates that if we could know everything there is to know, we could predict the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at time t.

 

[Agent327]

Right. And how does chaos theory fit into this?

 

[Honor]

Right. And how does chaos theory fit into this?

Why would chaos theory need to fit into it? The initial conditions are the same in both scenarios.

Edit: Oh, you mean the "it's sooo complicated, there are feedback loops and stuff, we can't figure it out!" part of chaos theory. If all information and a complete model were available, chaos theory would not apply. Because:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

i.e. we are not talking about approximations.

How about we talk about the apparent randomness/probabilistic behavior of subatomic particles, collapsing wave functions, Copenhagen approach, Niels Bohr vs Einstein, etc. I am curious about other people's thoughts.

 

[Lexicus]

How about we talk about the apparent randomness/probabilistic behavior of subatomic particles, collapsing wave functions, Copenhagen approach, Niels Bohr vs Einstein, etc. I am curious about other people's thoughts.

Well, if you know anything about quantum mechanics you already know that what you said about determinism in post 64 is wrong. You cannot know the position and momentum (thus velocity) of the same particle.

 

[Honor]

Well, if you know anything about quantum mechanics you already know that what you said about determinism in post 64 is wrong. You cannot know the position and momentum (thus velocity) of the same particle.

What you mean to say is the position and momentum of the same particle cannot be known under the constraints imposed by our current model of describing reality - i.e. wave-particle duality. This assumes that our current model is correct, and some information about the universe is forever out of reach for the observer due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Planck's constant. This uncertainty and randomness clearly contradicts with our deterministic experience of the real world at the macro scale, and therefore requires overwhelming evidence and a clear mechanical explanation. Why is it possible to know the position and momentum of particles at the macro scale and not at the sub-nano scale? I know there is a mathematical explanation for it, but what is the mechanistic explanation? What happens during the transition from the sub-nano to the macro? Does causality just decide to break down? How would a soup of non-deterministic sub-components result in a deterministic whole?

The fact that a model seems to fit the data does not mean the model is correct. Particle-wave duality may be the best explanation we have right now of what is going on, but jumping to conclusions about deterministic causality based on a still developing scientific field and abandoning what we see right in front of us is not rational. Additionally, what subatomic particles are doing on their own may not matter in terms of causality if the resulting macro structures are still behaving deterministically. Thus, what is the implication of all this on free will? That there is randomness because quantum physics predicts it? The supposedly random behaviour predicted by wave-particle duality simply does not translate to non-subatomic realm. How do you explain this?

 

[Lexicus]

What you mean to say is the position and momentum of the same particle cannot be known under the constraints imposed by our current model of describing reality - i.e. wave-particle duality.

This has little to do with the wave-particle duality as far as I understand it. It's a fundamental characteristic of any quantum system.

The case of degeneracy pressure illustrates this - degeneracy pressure is a physical effect arising from the uncertainty principle. Put a bunch of particles in a small enough area, and their positions will be quite certain, meaning their velocities must be very uncertain. This is what gives dense objects like neutron stars some of their weird properties.

Why is it possible to know the position and momentum of particles at the macro scale and not at the nano scale?

It's not.

Particle-wave duality may be the best explanation we have right now of what is going on, but jumping to conclusions about deterministic causality based on a still developing scientific field

The only scientific fields that are not "still developing" are the ones (like, say, phrenology) that have been dismissed/abandoned.

Thus, what is the implication of all this on free will?

I see no more room for free will in an indeterminate world of randomly-moving particles than in a deterministic world where everything proceeds on rails from the initial state. Free will is better seen as a model useful in certain contexts than as some transcendent truth, anyway.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's not.

To expand on this - we treat measurements in centimetres and millimetres as 'exact' because the error created by the uncertainty principle is too small to matter for what we're doing, and many orders of magnitude smaller than other errors in our measurements. That stops being true once you're measuring on a quantum scale. The problem isn't that we don't have good enough machinery to measure these things exactly - the problem is that the act of measuring a particle's position destroys some of the data necessary to measure its velocity, and vice-versa.

 

[Samson]

To expand on this - we treat measurements in centimetres and millimetres as 'exact' because the error created by the uncertainty principle is too small to matter for what we're doing, and many orders of magnitude smaller than other errors in our measurements. That stops being true once you're measuring on a quantum scale. The problem isn't that we don't have good enough machinery to measure these things exactly - the problem is that the act of measuring a particle's position destroys some of the data necessary to measure its velocity, and vice-versa.

This is one of the things I can never get with the uncertainty principle. It seems to me 2 quite separate things to say that we cannot measure the velocity and position accurately and to say that these properties cannot be fundamentally defined (and so we have things like Hawking radiation and these properties of neutron stars and such).

 

[Lohrenswald]

hey @Honor what're you trying to get at?

 

[Honor]

hey @Honor what're you trying to get at?

If human behavior were deterministic, people would not be able to claim the poor are poor because they just don't "get it", don't work hard enough, etc. Ties into the nature vs nurture debate where an aforementioned criterion for a good life is success - i.e. wealth.

To expand on this - we treat measurements in centimetres and millimetres as 'exact' because the error created by the uncertainty principle is too small to matter for what we're doing, and many orders of magnitude smaller than other errors in our measurements. That stops being true once you're measuring on a quantum scale. The problem isn't that we don't have good enough machinery to measure these things exactly - the problem is that the act of measuring a particle's position destroys some of the data necessary to measure its velocity, and vice-versa.

I don't think that's what Lexicus meant, though. The position-velocity restriction, ala Heisenberg's uncertainty inequality, is a fundamental one, because the product of the change in these two properties is restricted with a constant - i.e. it is not about observations interfering with the data collected, but I do realize that is another issue with experimenting at the sub-atomic scale.

This has little to do with the wave-particle duality as far as I understand it. It's a fundamental characteristic of any quantum system.

Planck constant (Wikipedia): The Planck–Einstein relation connects the particulate photon energy E with its associated wave frequency f:

Therefore, Planck's constant is a fundamental property of systems that incorporate electromagnetic and EM-like waves, which makes it a fundamental part of systems assuming wave-particle duality.

It's not.

Yes, it is. Just because quantum physics predicts wave like behavior for sub-components of matter, this does not mean macro-scale matter behaves the same way. Obviously, we cannot assume infinite precision for our measurements of the position and velocity of macro-scale matter, so a maximum precision value needs to be determined for the assertion.

The only scientific fields that are not "still developing" are the ones (like, say, phrenology) that have been dismissed/abandoned.

Let me correct myself: still developing and highly theoretical.

I see no more room for free will in an indeterminate world of randomly-moving particles than in a deterministic world where everything proceeds on rails from the initial state. Free will is better seen as a model useful in certain contexts than as some transcendent truth, anyway.

That is an interesting point of view, could you elaborate?

 

[Lohrenswald]

If human behavior were deterministic, people would not be able to claim the poor are poor because they just don't "get it", don't work hard enough, etc. Ties into the nature vs nurture debate where an aforementioned criterion for a good life is success - i.e. wealth.

wait what? It's perfectly reasonable that deterministic processes lead to individuals that claim whatever

Just because someone denies determinism doesn't mean it's false

I see no more room for free will in an indeterminate world of randomly-moving particles than in a deterministic world where everything proceeds on rails from the initial state. Free will is better seen as a model useful in certain contexts than as some transcendent truth, anyway.

That is an interesting point of view, could you elaborate?

Well, this is kinda weird, because I imagined you where trying to get at what lexicus just said there lol

 

[Honor]

wait what? It's perfectly reasonable that deterministic processes lead to individuals that claim whatever

Just because someone denies determinism doesn't mean it's false

Well, this is kinda weird, because I imagined you where trying to get at what lexicus just said there lol

Ok here is my line of thought:
1. Free will requires a mechanism free from the seemingly deterministic nature of the universe
2. Taking responsibility for one's poverty or being accused of it presupposes the existence of free will
3. Quantum uncertainty creates a possibility for the mechanism mentioned in 1 - i.e. "not everything is deterministic"

 

[Lohrenswald]

Ok here is my line of thought:
1. Free will requires a mechanism free from the seemingly deterministic nature of the universe
2. Taking responsibility for one's poverty or being accused of it presupposes the existence of free will
3. Quantum uncertainty creates a possibility for the mechanism mentioned in 1 - i.e. "not everything is deterministic"

Well that's like not true
Firstly quantum mechanics still describe a deterministic world (though it's probability determined)

But more important is that 2 is just flat out false. You can perfectly take responsibility for whatever even though it's followed deterministic laws

 

[Honor]

Well that's like not true
Firstly quantum mechanics still describe a deterministic world (though it's probability determined)

But more important is that 2 is just flat out false. You can perfectly take responsibility for whatever even though it's followed deterministic laws

Deterministic but probability determined? I think specificity is needed for the use of the term deterministic, since we seem to differ in its meaning.

My point 2 would only be false if the general perception were that free will is an illusion. There may be a miscommunication on my part: I do not believe it is not possible to take responsibility or believe to take responsibility while at the same time being a determinist. What I was trying to say was people see other people's lack of initiative as the only culprit for their circumstances, foregoing every other causal determinant.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Deterministic but probability determined? I think specificity is needed for the use of the term deterministic, since we seem to differ in its meaning.

I've got professors on my back on this one lol

My point 2 would only be false if the general perception were that free will is an illusion. There may be a logical error in your reasoning: I have never claimed it was not possible to take responsibility or believe to have responsibility while at the same time being a determinist. What I claimed was people see other people's lack of initiative as the only culprit for their circumstances, foregoing every other causal determinant.

If I understand what you're saying now correctly, it doesn't make any sense to bring up quantum physics
It even hardly makes sense to bring up physics at all

 

[Honor]

I've got professors on my back on this one lol

If I understand what you're saying now correctly, it doesn't make any sense to bring up quantum physics
It even hardly makes sense to bring up physics at all

I skipped a few steps and jumped right into refuting the quantum physics argument for free will

 

[Lexicus]

That is an interesting point of view, could you elaborate?

Which part?

 

[Honor]

Which part?

Nevermind, my brain was functioning suboptimally

 

[Birdjaguar]

For me it is simple deterministic causality. Since everything follows from whatever happened before, so do we. So do our thoughts and feelings. If we were to rewind time to 5 minutes before, there is no reason for things to play out any differently during these 5 minutes because the initial conditions are the same. Even though we cannot measure the position and velocity of all particles at time t-5, deterministic causality we observe at the macro scale dictates that if we could know everything there is to know, we could predict the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at time t.

You make a pretty big leap in there when you say that quantum level activity or non activity determine which thoughts we have, words we speak and actions we take prior to our performing them. That implies that there is no intermediary step or process utilizing any of the many aspects of our consciousness. is there any science to support that?

Let me ask you some questions.
If quantum states determine all, then which quantum states, where are doing the determining? Do the quantum states of my hands and feet play a role? Are the only important ones in my brain?
If a cat is purring on my lap at the time, does its quantum states play a role?
What is included in your "initial conditions"?
Can I influence may own initial conditions? Can my wife? S that future actions will be different?

Thanks.