Quote:
Originally posted by CSflim
I assume that you were referring to my post
"I always cringe when people make the claim that quantum mechanics shows that it is possible for free will to exist".
I wasn't actually making direct reference to YOUR post there, rather the general consensus that somehow non-determinism/unpredictability=free will.
|
Agreed. Again, though, I would have a tendency to at least connect the two. Barring any unforseen circumstances, if there was a non-determinalistic environment, then wouldn't the actions taken by the subjects in said environment be of their own volition? And ergo, at least partially, free will?
Quote:
I feel very strongly that quantum effects do indeed come into play when it comes the brain. But I don't see how this gives rise to free will. If you roll a die, it cannot be predicted what number you will score. Does the die therefore have free will?
|
The number that you score cannont be accurately predicted at all times, though the framework of the possibilities can. The difference, however, is that in order for the die to actually make this action possible, it must be acted upon by an outside force. Due to that catalyst, which is the only way that it can make an entrance into that framework, the die cannot be said to have free will as such; only the ability to add a set amount of choices to a certain action.
Quote:
" I'm of the opinion that science is just as full of doubt as any religion" - well that's your opinion, but I believe few rational people would agree with you. Perhaps you would like to give an example as to why you believe science is so full of doubt?
Granted there are many questions which we cannot yet answer, but we have come a very long way, and now understand much, much more than we did a thousand years ago. I have yet to see a priest harness divine intervention in the construction of a jumbo jet.
|
Heh. Jumbo jet.
I'm sorry. I was pointing out the fact that the theory of evolution, the laws of thermodynamics and gravity, et. al. are not airtight, mostly due to the fact that they were based on a foundation of hypotheses that may or may not have been proven true under all situations. Do they allow for incredible leaps forward in technology and the sciences? Of course. Are they empirically more sound that any type of religious dogma? Perhaps...but only for the physicality of the medium of belief.
This was my opinion, and perhaps I should have left it out of a debate on free will, but I felt like saying it. It relies on this: that your average person (mean/median/etc.) who believes in evolution has about the same amount of knowledge of how that came about as the basic bible-thumper has of Genesis (both of the stories). People tend to rely on "noted scholars", or "eminent physicists" on subjects of incredible importance, when the only point of contact that they have with this physicist is through a newsfilter. This reminded me of the general Catholic spiritual view in which I was raised. Hence, my point (however cluttered and winding). Take it with a grain or so of salt, because it has very little to do with free will.
Quote:
If you are going to point to quantum theory as an example of scientists "not having a clue" then I would put it too you that you do not fully understand what is going on. Certainly there is an indeterminacy involved in quantum events, but it is a precisely well defined indeterminacy. For the most part a quantum wavefunction will act in a very deterministic manner as defined by the Schroedinger equation. There is a precisely "calculatable" probability involved when said wave function collapses, when its effects are magnified to the classical level, but that is all.
|
I never intended to use quantum mechanics to explain that scientists "have no clue;" though I do admit to being less knowledgeable than I would like to be in the quantum field. I understand that the randomness of the quantum particles are random to the extent of said probabalistic framework, and I based my earlier statement on the hypothesis (purely in theory, mind you)that the brain is built to enhance that probabalistic theory
ad infinitum, and this may be an actual empiric loophole for the existance of free will.
No beef, man, no beef.