I can agree that his arguments for free-will are depressingly poor and even mock-worthy. But that doesn't mean his conclusions are false. You didn't explcitly state your argument, but I'm very curious what it is. Do you have some way around the fact that cuase and effect is now known to not be universal?
@modelmark how do you determine that the decay is not triggered by the internal state of the atom, but that it is purely random, not caused by anything?
@modelmark Here's a quote from Paul Davies, with my own emphasis added. "If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour." (continued below)
@SlaveryEvolves "This uncertainty is NOT simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is INHERENT in nature itself, a basic part of quantum REALITY." - Paul Davies. Why or how exactly the leading scientists have come to this conclusion I don't know.
@SlaveryEvolves Yes, I know the commonly held viewpoint on this, but I do not agree, or at least not until I understand how this is the only conclusion possible. I suspect psychological dysfunction. The John Bell experiment is the one that comes closest to experimental proof (for an analogous conclusion on entanglement). I side with Einstein on this for now, also see my review of Manjit Kumar's book Quantum.
@SlaveryEvolves What is also noteworthy is in this googletechtalk gKA1k3VJDq by Edward Farhi professor of physics at MIT.
at 12.00 he explains about the Schrodinger equation. Note that the probability function at t=t1+1 is uniquely determined by the probability function at t=t1. The term used is that reality shows deterministic time evolution. This equation has never seen to be violated.
@modelmark He says the wave function is deterministic, meaning if there is a 50% probability that X will happen at t=0, then the probability at t=1 will be y% no matter what (deterministic). But he's still talking about waves of probability. Doesn't seem to contradict what Paul Davies said.
@SlaveryEvolves I did not mean it to contradict Davies, just to emphasize that QM uncertainty is no opening for free will. Or you have to include a dice into having free will as well.
@modelmark I agree. However I wasn't arguing for free will. The only argument I know of for determinism is that it follows directly from the premise that cause and effect is universal. I agree that it does follow, I (and Davies) just don't agree that the premise is true.
@SlaveryEvolves Resolving the contradictions between QM and relativity is very hard. There are some really weird experiments regarding QM, the outcomes of which can be predicted by the sum over all possible histories approach, but I still think this emerges from an underlying objective reality.
@modelmark I agree, but an underlying objective reality doesn't necessarily imply that cause and effect are universal. One would need to show that you can't have the later without the former (which is not obvious). Not sure if you meant to imply that or not, just saying.
I remember Molyneux talking about Ayn Rand clinging to the idea of government, and he was just flabbergasted how such a thing could happen, and he went about psychoanalyzing her, trying to figure out how she could make such an error, simultaneously accepting and rejecting the violation of property.
While at the same time he was both accepting and denying that reality is causal.
I suspect this comes from his Randianism. It took him years to reject IP. That was another bit of Rand in him.
@erhnamdj good point, he himself also admittedly was a minarchist for a long time. I have to admit IP also took me some time. Words can really confuse here, the term property really does not apply, intellectual also sounds ok, so what could be wrong with IP?
I do think that as you age and your brain gets less flexible, at some point it gets impossible to grasp new ideas. I'm happy I got some errors straightened out before that moment.
Years ago, after being owned by determinists numerous times at his own forums, Molyneux declared any further discussions on determinism vs free will verboten.
@TotalAnomy yeah, that makes is strange that in fdr1955 he claims he is always open to a debate on this, without mentioning if and why he changed his mind on this.
@modelmark holy crap, 1955? I don't know how you stand it, I heard some of the podcast up until the 600's, and by then I was through with his bullshit. I do like it though that he appears on RT, if for nothing else to see someone defending anarchism on TV.
@TotalAnomy I haven't listen to all of them, but I think I did see all his youtubes. He still has some nice metaphors and talking points. What do you listen to? Have some good recommendations?
@TotalAnomy not just discussions about it were verboten, I parted when he claimed to have lost all respect for determinists. You would assume this included a determinist like Einstein, but strangely enough he is alright with his theories that do not make a difference to reality.
@blackacidlizzard and apparently, the minute you become a determinist you don't care about anyone's opinions on anything, even if their beliefs affect you in ways that can represent your life or death. In other words, being a determinist equals not caring about anything!
I can agree that his arguments for free-will are depressingly poor and even mock-worthy. But that doesn't mean his conclusions are false. You didn't explcitly state your argument, but I'm very curious what it is. Do you have some way around the fact that cuase and effect is now known to not be universal?
SlaveryEvolves 2 months ago
@SlaveryEvolves are you referring to quantum mechanics?
modelmark 2 months ago
@modelmark or if you want a specific example, the decay of a radioactive nucleus.
SlaveryEvolves 2 months ago
@modelmark how do you determine that the decay is not triggered by the internal state of the atom, but that it is purely random, not caused by anything?
modelmark 2 months ago
@modelmark Here's a quote from Paul Davies, with my own emphasis added. "If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour." (continued below)
SlaveryEvolves 2 months ago
@SlaveryEvolves "This uncertainty is NOT simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is INHERENT in nature itself, a basic part of quantum REALITY." - Paul Davies. Why or how exactly the leading scientists have come to this conclusion I don't know.
SlaveryEvolves 2 months ago
@SlaveryEvolves Yes, I know the commonly held viewpoint on this, but I do not agree, or at least not until I understand how this is the only conclusion possible. I suspect psychological dysfunction. The John Bell experiment is the one that comes closest to experimental proof (for an analogous conclusion on entanglement). I side with Einstein on this for now, also see my review of Manjit Kumar's book Quantum.
modelmark 2 months ago
@SlaveryEvolves What is also noteworthy is in this googletechtalk gKA1k3VJDq by Edward Farhi professor of physics at MIT.
at 12.00 he explains about the Schrodinger equation. Note that the probability function at t=t1+1 is uniquely determined by the probability function at t=t1. The term used is that reality shows deterministic time evolution. This equation has never seen to be violated.
modelmark 2 months ago
@modelmark He says the wave function is deterministic, meaning if there is a 50% probability that X will happen at t=0, then the probability at t=1 will be y% no matter what (deterministic). But he's still talking about waves of probability. Doesn't seem to contradict what Paul Davies said.
SlaveryEvolves 2 months ago
@SlaveryEvolves I did not mean it to contradict Davies, just to emphasize that QM uncertainty is no opening for free will. Or you have to include a dice into having free will as well.
modelmark 2 months ago
@modelmark I agree. However I wasn't arguing for free will. The only argument I know of for determinism is that it follows directly from the premise that cause and effect is universal. I agree that it does follow, I (and Davies) just don't agree that the premise is true.
SlaveryEvolves 2 months ago
@SlaveryEvolves Resolving the contradictions between QM and relativity is very hard. There are some really weird experiments regarding QM, the outcomes of which can be predicted by the sum over all possible histories approach, but I still think this emerges from an underlying objective reality.
modelmark 2 months ago
@modelmark I agree, but an underlying objective reality doesn't necessarily imply that cause and effect are universal. One would need to show that you can't have the later without the former (which is not obvious). Not sure if you meant to imply that or not, just saying.
SlaveryEvolves 1 month ago
I remember Molyneux talking about Ayn Rand clinging to the idea of government, and he was just flabbergasted how such a thing could happen, and he went about psychoanalyzing her, trying to figure out how she could make such an error, simultaneously accepting and rejecting the violation of property.
While at the same time he was both accepting and denying that reality is causal.
I suspect this comes from his Randianism. It took him years to reject IP. That was another bit of Rand in him.
erhnamdj 6 months ago
@erhnamdj good point, he himself also admittedly was a minarchist for a long time. I have to admit IP also took me some time. Words can really confuse here, the term property really does not apply, intellectual also sounds ok, so what could be wrong with IP?
I do think that as you age and your brain gets less flexible, at some point it gets impossible to grasp new ideas. I'm happy I got some errors straightened out before that moment.
modelmark 6 months ago
Good video. This sums up a lot of my historic frustrations with Molyneux.
Ksabrs45 6 months ago
Years ago, after being owned by determinists numerous times at his own forums, Molyneux declared any further discussions on determinism vs free will verboten.
TotalAnomy 6 months ago
@TotalAnomy yeah, that makes is strange that in fdr1955 he claims he is always open to a debate on this, without mentioning if and why he changed his mind on this.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark holy crap, 1955? I don't know how you stand it, I heard some of the podcast up until the 600's, and by then I was through with his bullshit. I do like it though that he appears on RT, if for nothing else to see someone defending anarchism on TV.
TotalAnomy 6 months ago
@TotalAnomy I haven't listen to all of them, but I think I did see all his youtubes. He still has some nice metaphors and talking points. What do you listen to? Have some good recommendations?
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark listen to as in youtube or Molyneux?
TotalAnomy 6 months ago
@TotalAnomy I probably saw all stefbot videos
modelmark 6 months ago
@TotalAnomy not just discussions about it were verboten, I parted when he claimed to have lost all respect for determinists. You would assume this included a determinist like Einstein, but strangely enough he is alright with his theories that do not make a difference to reality.
modelmark 6 months ago
In Molyneuxland, determinism is the belief that everything is impervious to cause and effect.
blackacidlizzard 6 months ago 3
@blackacidlizzard had to look up impervious, but that's well put: totally upside down.
modelmark 6 months ago
@blackacidlizzard and apparently, the minute you become a determinist you don't care about anyone's opinions on anything, even if their beliefs affect you in ways that can represent your life or death. In other words, being a determinist equals not caring about anything!
TotalAnomy 6 months ago