You're extrapolation from fixing dice throws is flawed. At the macro-level the quantum effects are usually (practically) irrelevant. But still, throw the dice something like 10^300000 times, it would be enough to cause an unpredicted event. In certain 'setups' QM readily effects the real world. In plants, (considerably less complex than the brain) QM has already been established. And the fact you speak of Quantum phenomena is direct evidence that it effects the macro world.
Where did this "structure" you speak of come from in the universe? To me it reminds me of a software program written by a programmer who didn't really give a shit once it was running
There are two necessary aspects to a scientific discovery inmendham: the theoretical, and the experimental. Experiment without theory is mere guesswork. The theoretical aspect of the discovery of the invention of the transistor heavily involved quantum mechanics. This theoretical aspect was used to devise experiments, which lead to the physical development of a practical transistor.
"I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe."
-Einstein
However allot has happened in physics since Einstein, and if you are going to simply dismiss it, then you are little better than the creationist who dismisses Evolution.
Quantum mechanics brought about the first accurate picture of the atom, which you use quite lightly. The intellectual climbs and rethinking of basic tenets were immense.
If you looked at it to sufficient depth, you would see QM approximates the apparently deterministic behaviour you are used to.
HUP jumped out of the working out though. It wasn't necessarily experimental. A guy doing math's at his desk came up with it. And he wasn't reconstructing in math's a situation where a particle is being bombarded.
You are right though. Quantum outcomes are based on confined possibilities, but really, what one ultimately comes out is pure chance.
"Just because there are limitations to the brain doesn't mean there isn't free will. "
It doesn't have to do with limitations in the brain as much as it does limitations with causality. Causality would only allow a person to elect from one viable option, as compared to the free will idea of "choosing" from more than one viable option.
This said it may turn out that QM effects have little (ie the probability of it affecting the system is vanishingly close to zero) effect to neuron firing, firing potentials, neurotransmitter activation, etc so entirely classical neural networks might be all that is required to explain the workings of our brains.
No-one knows for sure - though as I said its probably (no pun) going to be that classical non-linearity is enough to explain our neural machinery. Probably.
I think you are probably correct in your assertion that the computer is functionally equivalent to the human brain - though this is by no means proven so.
This said to declare that QM plays no part in the parallel computation is a bit of a stretch. Since the neural network in our brains is definitely highly non-linear even small perturbations of a 'brain state' (via QM induced neuron fire) may have a large effect at macroscopic timescales. How this non-linearity is utilised is not understood.
The transistor can't be understood without QM - it just can't. Newtonian mechanics says nothing in this domain.
Stating just because the probability space is small means its not random is totally absurd. The probability function associated with a particle is probabilistic if its constrained or not.
The uncertainty principle has no macroscopic analogy. Consider pool balls - there is no uncertainty principle (neither is there with your car).
There is nothing mystical in a transistor be it pnp or npn its a simple on off switch or gate. Good God some assholes even believe the technology was retreived from a crashed flying saucer, lol!
Yes transistors are actually very simple and were invented by discovery of electrical property of say silicon when crystalized with impurity like with boron.
Very simple - it's like an on off switch or 0 - 1 binary gate. Electricty can't pass between the plates until a current flows into the base/semiconductor to get the flow started - so it signals it to be on or off basically.
how the hell do you know that 'our brains aren't doing anything quantum'? that seems a little arrogant to assume you know precisely how the brain works... no one knows buddy. as far as the 'what the bleep' business...
i agree it is a bit over the top ...but the computer metaphor is just another metaphor. as is the 'network' metaphor...it's all metaphors and you don't really have a clue what is going one...NO ONE DOES!
actually they've figured out your sense is smell is partially quantum based if thats the case then theres a possibility the brain's operation could also be at least partially quantum based
Actually, that theory is very controversial, but even given the legitamacy of it, and even if the brain was affected to a degree at the quantum level - it would not help out with this idea of "free will" in any way. Even the smell theory is not saying that smells arise randomly at the quantum level, but that they are caused at the quantum level of the oder molecule. Shit will not smell like a flower...ever. :)
There is no such thing as 100% absolute certain knowledge of anything, but if something cannot exist with contradicting what we do know with close to certainty, and we have no real scientific evidence for it's existence - we can conclude that that thing does not exist with enough probability that it would be absurd to hold a belief in it...even if we have the illusion that it exists. (MORE)
The illusion that the earth looks flat to someone that has not seen a picture of it from space, does not mean that it is flat once we look at all of the evidence at hand.
"Free Will" is logically incompatable with causality, as well as with randomness. These are the only tow possible states that we know of. If something does not come about through causality, it must be random, and vice versa...unless you can show some other way that something can happen in which we don't currently understand. Note: I am not saying randomness exists, because I doubt it does, but even IF it does, it is logically incompatable with free will.
Yes, free will does entail a supernatural intervention. (I'm not saying that it's a god) I don't disagree with you there.
But you missed my point. Your belief system entails you to posit information that you yourself believes could be illusionary. The biological machine called trick0171 may be a malfunctioning one. The fact that you think others agree with you could just be part of your illusion.
Again I ask, what concrete evidence do you have that you trick0171 is right?
"Your belief system entails you to posit information that you yourself believes could be illusionary."
"Could be" is different than "probably is not". Anything "could be". Are you trying to start an epistomological debate here? My epistomology is based on the methods of science & logic, as those our our most reliable methods. (MORE)
I really cannot educate you as to why they are the most reliable methods in comments, so I would rather stick to the debate on free will (using science and logic) instead of epistomological methodology. If you think they are not our best methods, we really cannot have this discussion regarding free will at this point,and I urge you to study both logic, science, and philosophy (specifically epistomology).
Choice (free will) is what makes us human. Take that away and we become a clockwork orange. We still exist on a physical level but there's nothing inside, just a clockwork mechanism.
Sorry, even though you removed it from this page ....
You said:
"In the sense that we are a cog in the machine, you are correct, however, not having free will doesn'tt take away consciousness or awareness, "
Are you a free thinker? Consciousnes or thought is a physical phenomenon. Ever hear of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging? It allows scientists to see neurons firing in the brain as it thinks.
Do you claim to be a free thinker? Can't do it in a deterministic universe.
How are you defining "free thinker" here. The common definition is for FreeThought is: "a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma."
Speaking of MR's - Did you know that scientists can determine (by scanning the brain) the decision a person will make (for basic decisions such as pressing a button with the left hand or the right)...up to 10 seconds before the person even KNOWS which button they will press? It's quite interesting.
First about MRs - Do you have the source for that? A 10 second span between neuron firing and awareness? Fascinating, I would love to read about that.
On another subject. If thought is a physical phenomenon isn't it caused (influenced) by something? I see free thought as the absence of causation or influence. I see those two words as synonomous in this case.
Please get back to me on that MR study if you can.
Yes...it is "caused"...everything is caused...hence no "free will".
"I see free thought as the absence of causation or influence"
Then I am not a 'free thinker' using your definition of "free thought". Keep in mind that this is not the common definition of it though....so I would regard myself a free thinker per the common definition. :)
"no free will isnt logically incompatible with causality"
Yes...free will is completely incompatible. There is no "freedom" involved in a causal system. In other words, one cannot "choose" from more than one viable option, if that "choice" is caused. No real choice can be made. One can only elect from the one and only viable option that causality dictates. All other percieved options are just part of the causality that dictates the one and only option you must elect.
no because multiple reactions can have a singular cause. each one CAUSED by same thing with the one that happens being based on probabilities. if you pinch me i can say owie ouch ow or HEY dont do that. all CAUSED by being pinched which one i say is based on a probabilistic model
You can have mutiple causes to one effect, or multiple effects from one cause, but the effect or effects can only happen in one way based on the causality. For example, you can hit a white billiard ball into two balls at the same time, but the course of those two balls are determined based on the causality of the white ball. (MORE)
You can only say either "owie", or "HEY", or something else, based on the causality - no choice is made between those options. The election of one of them (or none of them) is automatic based on the preceding causality.
yes but which one i say is based entirely on probability. it's a multiple choice with no wrong answers. and the billiard ball analogy is completly bunk. a brain is not based on such deterministic laws or if they are they're really really fucking complex. so complex even after some centuries of study we dont even really have probabilistic rules to follow.
The billiard ball analogy was just to show how one event can cause multiple effects. Yes...the brain is very complex, but equally causal just the same. Think about the alternative: randomness...and what randomness would mean for this idea of thoughts being "willed". Good luck making a case based on randomness. (MORE)
Also, you seemed to be confused on something being "based on probability", and humans using probability in an attempt to come to something. The brain is not "based on probability", it is based on neuro-structure and the electro-chemical causality that runs through the structure.
by probability i mean non deterministic system. i never said random i said based on a probabilistic system instead of deterministic system. hence it isnt incompatable with causation but incompatable with determinisism
no matter what equation you run you cannot determine with 100% certainty what i will say when pinched. best you can do is grade my reponses based on probability and chose the one with the highest probability. this isnt one ball hits 2 balls causing 2 events. this is one cause may be the cause of one out of many possible outcomes.
There seems to be some confusion here on the word determinism. There is scientific determinism in the sense that humans are able to determine future events or the probability of future events based on current knowledge, and then there is philosophical determinism, which basically states that everything is causal and hence inevitable. It is the latter we talk about when discussing the idea of free will. (MORE)
Predictability is not the same as causality, and it is causality that is the concern for free will, not whether something is humanly predictable. We know per the uncertainty principle that human 100% predictability is impossible, but that does not matter. We know that the only 2 possible states (causal & random) are both incompatable with either freedom, a will, or both.
"this is one cause may be the cause of one out of many possible outcomes"
No, there is only one possible outcome based on the state it is in and the causality at the time. The other outcomes are impossible in a causal system.
theres a third possibility between random and non random and thats probability. which response i give to any given situation or stimulus is not a coin flip in the sense it is completly random. there are probabilities to each possible response or action. like i said thats not a random 50/50 or x/x/x/x you get the idea it's a gradient with the most likely actions on one side and the least likely on the other.
Probability is not a state between random and "nonrandom" (causal). In other words, the state of a coin flipping through the air and landing on heads is entirely causal in it's state. Whether it lands on heads or tails has a 50/50 probability ONLY to someone that does not know all of the causal elements, but the state is causal just the same. Probability only applies to human limits of knowledge and is not objectively "real" in any sense of the word.
what?? your second definition of determinisism has no real world meaning or application. it's easy to say everything has a cause and well you cant go wrong because nothing happens without a cause. but this does not mean everything is inevitable. so of course i use and have always used the first definition there because that has actual real world consequences. it means something instead of just being a statement. there arent just 2 possible states either (continued)
The second definition has real world consequences as well, and like I stated before, it is the definition that pertains to no free willnot the first one.
but this does not mean everything is inevitable
Again, this is where you are incorrect. If everything is caused, everything is inevitable. (MORE)
There is no way around this logically, because all causes would be in themselveseffects of previous causesmeaning that the chain of causality must go all the way back to the big bang (or further for all we know).
true quantum mechanics is just capitalized upon by the smell receptors instead of being the cause of smell. in the same sense the brain may also capitalize on quantum mechanics to operate at a higher efficiency then could otherwise by gains. i was just stating the point that QM may be invloved in how the brain cowrks
Quantum mechanics deals with the interaction of particles at an atomic and subatomic level due to the four fundamental forces of nature. All matter is composed of these particles and all forces are a result of these four forces. It can therefore be postulated that all matter and its interactions, at a micro- or macro- level can be described by quantum mechanics. Of course, physics is not always that linear. However, predictions made using the mathematics of quantum physics are highly (cont)
accurate at both a microscopic and macroscopic level, verifying the proposition that quantum mechanics is fundamental at essentially every level of physics.
Are you going to deny both mathematics and experimentation?
Quantum mechanics can describe just about every aspect of physics (quantum gravity is difficult to reconcile). If it can accurately describe physics at every level, then it is unifying. Therefore it is fundamental.
No, in fact, I am highly proficient at classical mechanics. However classical mechanics only works at a large scale, whereas QM works on every scale. The inaccuracy of Newtonian Mechanics at a small scale is also shown by Einstein' theory of relativity. Although we discovered some aspects of physics without QM. QM provides a unifying explanation for physics and helps us better understand discoveries that we have already made.
The point is that QM only applies to the small scale, and only is required when we need to apply something at that scale. We use classical mechanics to understand how things work at the large scale MOST of the time.
Also, Newtonian Mechanics is not "inaccurate" and we do not know if it is "relativity" that has the problem, if QM is incomplete, or if the two are compatible. To suggest that QM overrides the theory of relativity is incorrect to say the least.
Also, QM does not "provide a unifying explanation for physics".
I did not say that relativity "overrides" relativity. They are both extremely compatible theories. At a small scale Newtonian mechanics is highly inaccurate (F=ma does not hold). Practically everything in physics (apart form, at the moment gravity) can be expressed through quantum mechanics. Therefore it unifies all of these aspects of physics. Mathematics and experimentation both indicate that relativity is more accurate than Newtonian physics.
Classical mechanics is used for describing the "motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies". Also dealing with "gases, liquids, solids, and so on".
Much of this QM has little or nothing to say regarding this macroscopic portion.
Also, relativity IS part of classical mechanics - not QM.
I didn't say that relativity is part of quantum mechanics. Nor is it part of classical mechanics. Classical mechanics doesn't take into account that at high energies, the mass of a body will change (E=mc^2). Furthermore quantum mechanics is the only mechanical theory that works at low and high quantum numbers. Classical mechanics only works within a certain range of quantum numbers. At very low and very high quantum numbers it doesn't work.
In classical mechanics, time is taken as universal and constant whereas in relativity it is not. Classical mechanics is not relativistic nor is the idea of space-time.
Once again, I did not say that Relativistic mechanics is part of quantum mechanics. However, it is completely separate to classical mechanics. Once again, here's why: Newtonian mechanics considers time and space to be completely separate and also considers time to be invariant. Relativistic mechanics considers time to depend on the state of motion of the observer.
But that (you not lumping in relativity to classical physics) does nothing for your initial premise about QM being fundamental to every level of physics. That is the only statement I am arguing against.
As I have said, quantum physics can be used to describe nearly all aspects of physics. Since it is common to nearly every aspect of physics, it is highly probable that it is fundamental i.e. everything phenomenon in physics is at its heart, due to quantum interactions.
We are going back and fourth here. QM cannot be used to describe nearly all aspects of physics. QM only describes physics at the small scale - not the macroscopic scale. How is that "nearly all aspects of physics"??
Because as well as being able to highly accuratley describe the quantum world, it can also be used to describe the macroscopic world. In fact, as I said at high quantum numbers (effectively an extremely large scale) quantum mechanics seems to be the only way to describe it. Classical mechanics will only work for a certain range of quantum numbers, whereas quantum mechanics works for all quantum numbers.
Quantum numbers describe values of conserved quantities in the dynamics of a quantum system. The key here is "quantum system". They do not describe the macroscopic universe. They describe electrons in atoms (energies, angular momentum, spin), etc.
But Hamiltonians are used to describe quantum numbers. Hamiltonian mechanics can be generalized to describe both classical and quantum mechanics. Therefore, the hamiltonians in a quantum system can be analogized in a classical system. As a result, quantum numbers can be used to describe classical systems.
There is a difference between a Hamiltonian (the observable corresponding to the total energy of the system) and Hamiltonian mechanics. HM provides insight into provides insight into the structure of CM and its connection to QM - but it does not go through QM (or quantum numbers) to describe CM.
I perfectly understand that the Hamiltonian Mechanics are different. But the point is that both classical and quantum systems can be described in terms of Hamiltonians. These operators are extremely important in Hamiltonian mechanics, the equations of which can be generalized to describe both classical and quantum systems. Therefore, for every quantum description of a system, there is an analogous classical description. However, at very low and high quantum numbers, the classical description is
Yes it has. Look up relativistic quantum field theory. It is a quantum theory of fields which incorporates Einstein's special relativity. Look up the quantum electrodynamics,
I'm not disagreeing with you that QFT incorporates relativity. What I am disagreeing with you on is that is reconciles QM. I big difference. It does not fix the QM/ relativity problem. Regardless, this entire line of discussion is off topic of your initial point. :)
I don't get what you mean. Quantum Field Theory describes special relativity through quantum physics. Relativity isn't a problem for quantum physics, but it is a problem classical physics at a large scale.
QFT provides a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of systems classically described by fields or of many-body systems. It incorporates Einstein's relativity theory, it does not describe it, nor does it solve the problem of QM/relativity.
Einstein had two theories of relativity: special and general. Quantum mechanics has been unified with special relativity, as i said (this was first done by Dirac in 1930). However I also acknowledged that quantum physics cannot yet describe gravity (which is involved in general relativity). Special relativity has been combined with quantum mechanics, general relativity has not been.
Agreed. Where I do not agree is that "gravity" is the only thing that QM does not describe. QM does not describe MOST of the things that CM describes. In other words, CM is requires for much of the macroscopic descriptions, QM is not and most of the time is entirely insufficient without CM's descriptions.
Quantum mechanics actually all systems far more accurately (although on a large scale it could be very tedious, and Newtionian mechanics suffices). Take for example the force between two surfaces in contact, called the normal reaction. Newton did not know what this force was .However, now it is known that it is due to the electromagnetic force between the electrons of the two surfaces. This is a quantum event (the exchange of photons).
Lets go into particulars then (as I still disagree). How does QM "describe" motion (velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time) of large scale objects? As far as I know this cannot be explained without CM - Newtons first law (Inertia).
My question asks how it describes motion of large scale objects, not particles at the Quantum level. The de Broglie wave is in regards to the motion of quantum particles.
The point I am making here has to do with where QM is applicable and where CM is applicable because they are not the same. There may be some overlap, but not nearly as much as you are suggesting.
Sorry about removing my comment btw. I wanted to formulate an answer for your entire question. I will respond try to respond tomorrow as it is very late where I am. However I will say this. The De Broglie equation can apply to all matter, of any size, because all matter has a wave motion associated with it. However at high masses, the quantum effects become negligible, and it is often more efficient to use the Newtonian equations of motion.
I agree that it applies to all matter (as all matter is made of atoms) - but it does not apply in a way that answers the questions that CM does. We are not able to explain the motion of large scale objects through our understanding of the motion of particles that make up those objects. I'm off to bed as well. Take care.
Many modern sources do include Einstein's mechanics, which in their view represents classical mechanics in its most developed and most accurate form. But even if you do not, it should not be lumped in with QM in any way.
Apart from the equation that i already mentioned, newton also thought that the 3 dimensions of space and the dimension of time. In fact, as relativity shows, space and time cannot be separated. Physics has advanced far beyond classical mechanics., which only remains viable at a large scale.
Relativity is not QM - it is classical mechanics. The idea of space and time not being separate has nothing to do with QM and everything to do with classical mechanics.
Evidence exists for free will. One is the ability to think and act on those thoughts. the other is self-awareness and that we are separate from the things we act upon.
Is anybody here going to admit they cannot think? Cannot act on a thought? Are not aware of their own existence? Anybody?
Ahh, but "free will is metaphysical and we live in a purely physical universe. So, therefore, free will cannot exist and our thoughts but illusions." An illusion is a thought just an erroneous one.
If you want to admit you cannot think, even illusionary ones, then you may personally lack free will.
So, then how to solve the riddle. How can free will exist in a purely physical universe? The answer is that it isn't purely physical. Quantum theory anyone?
Funny, it reminds of when scientists were postulating how the moon was formed. The computer models they came up with weren't working. So, they laughingly concluded they "proved" the moon cannot exist.
There is empirical evidence of it. Now, we just have to find out how it works. I think most of us here have concluded the god or gods theory doesn't work.
And maybe quantum theory also doesn't work. That is yet to be seen despite your hosts arguments.
So, like the existence of the moon, we continue to work on models for free will. Who knows, maybe we'll never find it. Maybe our brains are incapable of fully understanding the universe or multiverse.
"The answer is that it isn't purely physical. Quantum theory anyone?"
It is called is Quantum Physics for a reason, namely because it is physical. QM also does not rule out causality, but even if it did, it would not help "free will".
Either everything is caused, in which case we cannot "choose" between more than one viable option (so it is not "free"), or there is some randomness involved, in which case (if a thought could come about this way) - would make a thought random and not "free" or "willed".
As I plan my day tomorrow, there's nothing random about my thought. I also know I can just go to bed and not plan my day now. That's my choice.
I don't understand the origin of free will, but it exists. My knowledge of my own existense is evidence of that.
As I'm not a scientist, I will leave further discoveries, either through QM or otherwise, about how free will works in our seemingly physical universe to them. In the meantime, I'll just allow that I don't know why.
What amazes me is that we just can't allow that there are some things in the universe we just don't understand yet. They don't fit the models we've created yet.
For theists, it's easy, God does it. But for my fellow atheists, they can't allow that maybe we just don't know why yet.
It would be one thing if there were no evidence of free will, but there is. Thinking and self-awareness demonstrates that.
"It would be one thing if there were no evidence of free will, but there is. Thinking and self-awareness demonstrates that."
Thinking and self awareness are not evidence of "free will", anymore than they are evidence of any illusion the mind creates. That is like saying there is evidence that railroad tracks converge at the horizon because that is what the mind sees.
It is common to confuse "thinking" or "self awareness" with "free will". They are completely seperate. Free will is not a requirement of thinking or that thinking producing an awareness. Those are items that just come about through causal chains, and they are inevitable. :)
I don't believe in free will (maybe if someone could tell me what it is I might start), but you're stating things you don't know as fact in this video and being overly presumptious.
That is not what he said. He said that the INVENTION of the transister did not have anything to do with QM theory. Anything that utilizes electrons can have some explanetory power using QM, but that is besides the actual invention which came about through experimentation using metal and a semiconductor.
it's explained by quantum mechanics. And all technology is verified by experiment and not fully understood. But QM is definitely used to improve the transister... what the point of trying to make up some exclusion, in combination with claiming NEWTONIAN physics of all things explains it.
The point that Gary was making had to do with the video to the side that he lionked which blatently lies about the history of the transistor to make QM out to be something it is not...that is all. Quantum experimentation was not required for the invention of it (going from tunes to transisters)...period.
I disagree, I don't think it's coincidental that QM preceded invention of the transistor. While it was built with trial and error, WHAT they tried was not random, and was not uninfluenced by QM and the modern physics of the time. Do you deny the inventors of the transistor were aware of an well educated in QM?
John Bardeen, William Shockley, and Walter Brattain, scientists at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey invented the first transistor. Please read about how this came about because it was done by substance trial and error for a contact point lead, and no QM was involved.
so you claim they did this in isolation of knowledge about QM. They had no idea that QM effects were possible to induce? And so the fact that QM explains the transistor was isolated from the reality? You didn't answer this part of my question. I already said I agreed trial and error was used and is ALWAYS used to create tech from science.
How important is it given that ONLY QM explains how it works, and QM has been used to improve it.
I stand corrected on this particular subject. It appears after more research in a number of sources that knowledge regarding the wavefunction from QM was a key factor in the initial development of the transistor.
I spoke too soon with only limited knowledge of the "transistor" subject. Whoops. :)
thanks, my respect for your ability to see a flaw in your argument raises my esteem for you well beyond the cost of having had a flaw in the first place... flaws are a dime a dozen, and found in the best of ideas, while honesty and intellectual bravery is far more rare. Cheers.
I guess you wanted an answer from Gary, but I will give you mine as I agree with Gary on this issue.
In order to prove free will we need to prove an effect that is an uncaused causer. Not only that, but the intrinsic system of that effect has to be outside of our current paradigm of causality all togheter. This leaves us with pretty much no alternative then to see the concept of free will as a human illusionary construct.
Uncertainty principle is that we don't even know enough to call them "particles." Whatever reality is at the quantum level, it is equally particle and wave depending on what property we are measuring for (momentum, velocity, etc).
You are wrong about this. The behavior of water molecules proves it. The exact positions of the electrons about the molecule is a quantum and incalculable determinant of the "flip."
"'You are wrong about this. The behavior of water molecules proves it. The exact positions of the electrons about the molecule is a quantum and incalculable determinant of the "flip."'"
Could you please provide the source of this information?
Not directly. The behavior of water molocules is usually well-described in biochemisy texts, but the quantum basis for the behavior usually must be inferred (at least it was so in my textbook) since that is not the point in biochemistry. It's an easy inferrence, however. The charge differential that causes the "flip" has to be due to the electron distribution.
The point of the video is that a computer does not do any operation outside of cause and effect.
There is no report on computers to act outside of the desired outcome, and when it is, we locate the flaw using our understanding of empiricist reality. Why would the brain move outside of causality?
No, the point of the video is that there is no free will. Quantum theory is not bunk, but most fail to realize that quantum theory does not say that causuality does not apply to atomic structures. Quantum theory works on a sub atomic level.
There's little point in arguing what the point is, as he could answer for himself if he wished to. Since I made a video stating specifically that quantum theory works at the sub-atomic level, and care must be taken in making analogies that apply to the macro-world, I'd say it's clear that I realize that. Nevertheless, there is an interface. There must be, since quantum behavior affects the states of molecules and molecules affect the states of structures.
When said evidence and the causualization of quantum mechanics and empiricist paradigm is proven I am all with you. However, causalization is the key. I have yet to hear an actual quantum physicist say that quantum particles are not subject to the laws of the universe. Not understanding effect does not mean "it is not caused".
I have not heard any physists say that quantum particles are not subject to the laws of the universe, either. I have heard them say that the applicable laws are quite different from the laws which apply on the macro scale. The only way to test anything having to do with the argument here would require the ability to rewind time. hit replay. and see if eveything replayed the same way or not.
You're extrapolation from fixing dice throws is flawed. At the macro-level the quantum effects are usually (practically) irrelevant. But still, throw the dice something like 10^300000 times, it would be enough to cause an unpredicted event. In certain 'setups' QM readily effects the real world. In plants, (considerably less complex than the brain) QM has already been established. And the fact you speak of Quantum phenomena is direct evidence that it effects the macro world.
zadeh79 3 months ago
Comment removed
billybob1212 1 year ago
@billybob1212 What your saying is complete nonsense. Quantum phenomena has been observed, and is well established.
zadeh79 3 months ago
Where did this "structure" you speak of come from in the universe? To me it reminds me of a software program written by a programmer who didn't really give a shit once it was running
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
you sound like you know stuff but why the need to swear?
stormatrix 2 years ago
There are two necessary aspects to a scientific discovery inmendham: the theoretical, and the experimental. Experiment without theory is mere guesswork. The theoretical aspect of the discovery of the invention of the transistor heavily involved quantum mechanics. This theoretical aspect was used to devise experiments, which lead to the physical development of a practical transistor.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Google: After a short delay quantum physics gets even stranger
cool experiment.
Cashify 2 years ago
"I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe."
-Einstein
However allot has happened in physics since Einstein, and if you are going to simply dismiss it, then you are little better than the creationist who dismisses Evolution.
camperkid 2 years ago
this is truly one of the funniest videos I have ever seen.
LOL
moneycrab 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics brought about the first accurate picture of the atom, which you use quite lightly. The intellectual climbs and rethinking of basic tenets were immense.
If you looked at it to sufficient depth, you would see QM approximates the apparently deterministic behaviour you are used to.
Tranxhead 2 years ago
HUP jumped out of the working out though. It wasn't necessarily experimental. A guy doing math's at his desk came up with it. And he wasn't reconstructing in math's a situation where a particle is being bombarded.
You are right though. Quantum outcomes are based on confined possibilities, but really, what one ultimately comes out is pure chance.
Tranxhead 2 years ago
lay off the LSD dude
GratefulChristian 2 years ago
frickin' "soul of the gaps"....
RabidApe 2 years ago
I find it absurd that you use "miraculously" in conjuction with "determined" . :)
trick0171 2 years ago
"Just because there are limitations to the brain doesn't mean there isn't free will. "
It doesn't have to do with limitations in the brain as much as it does limitations with causality. Causality would only allow a person to elect from one viable option, as compared to the free will idea of "choosing" from more than one viable option.
trick0171 2 years ago
i wish i understood all of that
lowendentheogen 2 years ago
The screen distortion visualizations are sooo trippy. I was laughing so much at the beginning with your shrunken face and shit. Good stuff.
billytankx 2 years ago
This said it may turn out that QM effects have little (ie the probability of it affecting the system is vanishingly close to zero) effect to neuron firing, firing potentials, neurotransmitter activation, etc so entirely classical neural networks might be all that is required to explain the workings of our brains.
No-one knows for sure - though as I said its probably (no pun) going to be that classical non-linearity is enough to explain our neural machinery. Probably.
Ikaath 2 years ago
I think you are probably correct in your assertion that the computer is functionally equivalent to the human brain - though this is by no means proven so.
This said to declare that QM plays no part in the parallel computation is a bit of a stretch. Since the neural network in our brains is definitely highly non-linear even small perturbations of a 'brain state' (via QM induced neuron fire) may have a large effect at macroscopic timescales. How this non-linearity is utilised is not understood.
Ikaath 2 years ago
You have the physics in this video pretty wrong.
The transistor can't be understood without QM - it just can't. Newtonian mechanics says nothing in this domain.
Stating just because the probability space is small means its not random is totally absurd. The probability function associated with a particle is probabilistic if its constrained or not.
The uncertainty principle has no macroscopic analogy. Consider pool balls - there is no uncertainty principle (neither is there with your car).
Ikaath 2 years ago
There is nothing mystical in a transistor be it pnp or npn its a simple on off switch or gate. Good God some assholes even believe the technology was retreived from a crashed flying saucer, lol!
TheSuicidalOptimist 2 years ago
You are absolutely right about everything here!
Yes transistors are actually very simple and were invented by discovery of electrical property of say silicon when crystalized with impurity like with boron.
Very simple - it's like an on off switch or 0 - 1 binary gate. Electricty can't pass between the plates until a current flows into the base/semiconductor to get the flow started - so it signals it to be on or off basically.
SuperiorMind 2 years ago
how the hell do you know that 'our brains aren't doing anything quantum'? that seems a little arrogant to assume you know precisely how the brain works... no one knows buddy. as far as the 'what the bleep' business...
i agree it is a bit over the top ...but the computer metaphor is just another metaphor. as is the 'network' metaphor...it's all metaphors and you don't really have a clue what is going one...NO ONE DOES!
normonics 2 years ago
two centuries behind and counting...
jogayot 2 years ago
maybe rudimentar mechanics self-expressing...
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago
why did u said that ?
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago
title must be inmendham solves the universe
semigotbanned 2 years ago
i agree [;
K3vinBacon 2 years ago
actually they've figured out your sense is smell is partially quantum based if thats the case then theres a possibility the brain's operation could also be at least partially quantum based
kitrana 2 years ago
Actually, that theory is very controversial, but even given the legitamacy of it, and even if the brain was affected to a degree at the quantum level - it would not help out with this idea of "free will" in any way. Even the smell theory is not saying that smells arise randomly at the quantum level, but that they are caused at the quantum level of the oder molecule. Shit will not smell like a flower...ever. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
A question trick0171:
How do you know you're right? And I emphasise the word know in this case.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
@ObserversEyes
There is no such thing as 100% absolute certain knowledge of anything, but if something cannot exist with contradicting what we do know with close to certainty, and we have no real scientific evidence for it's existence - we can conclude that that thing does not exist with enough probability that it would be absurd to hold a belief in it...even if we have the illusion that it exists. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
The illusion that the earth looks flat to someone that has not seen a picture of it from space, does not mean that it is flat once we look at all of the evidence at hand.
trick0171 2 years ago
"Free Will" is logically incompatable with causality, as well as with randomness. These are the only tow possible states that we know of. If something does not come about through causality, it must be random, and vice versa...unless you can show some other way that something can happen in which we don't currently understand. Note: I am not saying randomness exists, because I doubt it does, but even IF it does, it is logically incompatable with free will.
trick0171 2 years ago
Yes, free will does entail a supernatural intervention. (I'm not saying that it's a god) I don't disagree with you there.
But you missed my point. Your belief system entails you to posit information that you yourself believes could be illusionary. The biological machine called trick0171 may be a malfunctioning one. The fact that you think others agree with you could just be part of your illusion.
Again I ask, what concrete evidence do you have that you trick0171 is right?
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
"Your belief system entails you to posit information that you yourself believes could be illusionary."
"Could be" is different than "probably is not". Anything "could be". Are you trying to start an epistomological debate here? My epistomology is based on the methods of science & logic, as those our our most reliable methods. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
I really cannot educate you as to why they are the most reliable methods in comments, so I would rather stick to the debate on free will (using science and logic) instead of epistomological methodology. If you think they are not our best methods, we really cannot have this discussion regarding free will at this point,and I urge you to study both logic, science, and philosophy (specifically epistomology).
Take care,
Trick
trick0171 2 years ago
*epistemology (sp)
:)
trick0171 2 years ago
I really wish I could have explained it better to you Trick. But then I guess you're not programmed that way.
I wish you the best in your quest to deconstruct your own existence.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
mmmkaaayyyy :)
trick0171 2 years ago
Well, you see. It's like this Trick.
Choice (free will) is what makes us human. Take that away and we become a clockwork orange. We still exist on a physical level but there's nothing inside, just a clockwork mechanism.
That's what I mean by non-existence. mmmkayyy ;)
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
Comment removed
trick0171 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the sense that we are a cog in the machine, you are correct, however, not having free will doesn'tt take away consciousness or awareness,
trick0171 2 years ago
Sorry, even though you removed it from this page ....
You said:
"In the sense that we are a cog in the machine, you are correct, however, not having free will doesn'tt take away consciousness or awareness, "
Are you a free thinker? Consciousnes or thought is a physical phenomenon. Ever hear of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging? It allows scientists to see neurons firing in the brain as it thinks.
Do you claim to be a free thinker? Can't do it in a deterministic universe.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
How are you defining "free thinker" here. The common definition is for FreeThought is: "a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma."
In that definition I am a " Free Thinker".
(MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Speaking of MR's - Did you know that scientists can determine (by scanning the brain) the decision a person will make (for basic decisions such as pressing a button with the left hand or the right)...up to 10 seconds before the person even KNOWS which button they will press? It's quite interesting.
trick0171 2 years ago
One more thing - I totally agree that thought and consciousness are physical phenomenon. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
First about MRs - Do you have the source for that? A 10 second span between neuron firing and awareness? Fascinating, I would love to read about that.
On another subject. If thought is a physical phenomenon isn't it caused (influenced) by something? I see free thought as the absence of causation or influence. I see those two words as synonomous in this case.
Please get back to me on that MR study if you can.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
The actual journal is on nature neuroscience but here is the wired article:
wired(dot)com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision
or just google: "Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them"
(MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Yes...it is "caused"...everything is caused...hence no "free will".
"I see free thought as the absence of causation or influence"
Then I am not a 'free thinker' using your definition of "free thought". Keep in mind that this is not the common definition of it though....so I would regard myself a free thinker per the common definition. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
Thanks for the article info. I'll definitely read both of them.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
no free will isnt logically incompatible with causality it is somewhat incompatible with deterministic physics
kitrana 2 years ago
"no free will isnt logically incompatible with causality"
Yes...free will is completely incompatible. There is no "freedom" involved in a causal system. In other words, one cannot "choose" from more than one viable option, if that "choice" is caused. No real choice can be made. One can only elect from the one and only viable option that causality dictates. All other percieved options are just part of the causality that dictates the one and only option you must elect.
trick0171 2 years ago
no because multiple reactions can have a singular cause. each one CAUSED by same thing with the one that happens being based on probabilities. if you pinch me i can say owie ouch ow or HEY dont do that. all CAUSED by being pinched which one i say is based on a probabilistic model
kitrana 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"multiple reactions can have a singular cause"
-I AGREE
"one that happens being based on probabilities"
- I DISAGREE
You can have mutiple causes to one effect, or multiple effects from one cause, but the effect or effects can only happen in one way based on the causality. For example, you can hit a white billiard ball into two balls at the same time, but the course of those two balls are determined based on the causality of the white ball. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
You can only say either "owie", or "HEY", or something else, based on the causality - no choice is made between those options. The election of one of them (or none of them) is automatic based on the preceding causality.
trick0171 2 years ago
yes but which one i say is based entirely on probability. it's a multiple choice with no wrong answers. and the billiard ball analogy is completly bunk. a brain is not based on such deterministic laws or if they are they're really really fucking complex. so complex even after some centuries of study we dont even really have probabilistic rules to follow.
kitrana 2 years ago
The billiard ball analogy was just to show how one event can cause multiple effects. Yes...the brain is very complex, but equally causal just the same. Think about the alternative: randomness...and what randomness would mean for this idea of thoughts being "willed". Good luck making a case based on randomness. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Also, you seemed to be confused on something being "based on probability", and humans using probability in an attempt to come to something. The brain is not "based on probability", it is based on neuro-structure and the electro-chemical causality that runs through the structure.
trick0171 2 years ago
by probability i mean non deterministic system. i never said random i said based on a probabilistic system instead of deterministic system. hence it isnt incompatable with causation but incompatable with determinisism
kitrana 2 years ago
no matter what equation you run you cannot determine with 100% certainty what i will say when pinched. best you can do is grade my reponses based on probability and chose the one with the highest probability. this isnt one ball hits 2 balls causing 2 events. this is one cause may be the cause of one out of many possible outcomes.
kitrana 2 years ago
There seems to be some confusion here on the word determinism. There is scientific determinism in the sense that humans are able to determine future events or the probability of future events based on current knowledge, and then there is philosophical determinism, which basically states that everything is causal and hence inevitable. It is the latter we talk about when discussing the idea of free will. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Predictability is not the same as causality, and it is causality that is the concern for free will, not whether something is humanly predictable. We know per the uncertainty principle that human 100% predictability is impossible, but that does not matter. We know that the only 2 possible states (causal & random) are both incompatable with either freedom, a will, or both.
trick0171 2 years ago
"this is one cause may be the cause of one out of many possible outcomes"
No, there is only one possible outcome based on the state it is in and the causality at the time. The other outcomes are impossible in a causal system.
trick0171 2 years ago
theres a third possibility between random and non random and thats probability. which response i give to any given situation or stimulus is not a coin flip in the sense it is completly random. there are probabilities to each possible response or action. like i said thats not a random 50/50 or x/x/x/x you get the idea it's a gradient with the most likely actions on one side and the least likely on the other.
kitrana 2 years ago
Comment removed
trick0171 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"theres a third possibility..."
Probability is not a state between random and "nonrandom" (causal). In other words, the state of a coin flipping through the air and landing on heads is entirely causal in it's state. Whether it lands on heads or tails has a 50/50 probability ONLY to someone that does not know all of the causal elements, but the state is causal just the same. Probability only applies to human limits of knowledge and is not objectively "real" in any sense of the word.
trick0171 2 years ago
what?? your second definition of determinisism has no real world meaning or application. it's easy to say everything has a cause and well you cant go wrong because nothing happens without a cause. but this does not mean everything is inevitable. so of course i use and have always used the first definition there because that has actual real world consequences. it means something instead of just being a statement. there arent just 2 possible states either (continued)
kitrana 2 years ago
The second definition has real world consequences as well, and like I stated before, it is the definition that pertains to no free willnot the first one.
but this does not mean everything is inevitable
Again, this is where you are incorrect. If everything is caused, everything is inevitable. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
There is no way around this logically, because all causes would be in themselveseffects of previous causesmeaning that the chain of causality must go all the way back to the big bang (or further for all we know).
trick0171 2 years ago
*** eeerg...I hate when youtube messes up my comments. The "but this does not mean everything is inevitable" should be in quotes. ***
:)
trick0171 2 years ago
true quantum mechanics is just capitalized upon by the smell receptors instead of being the cause of smell. in the same sense the brain may also capitalize on quantum mechanics to operate at a higher efficiency then could otherwise by gains. i was just stating the point that QM may be invloved in how the brain cowrks
kitrana 2 years ago
Ok...as long as you were not attempting to contrive some mystical free will from QM I can agree there is a small but improbable possibility. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
QM is involved in how everything works. It is fundamental to the explanation of just about everything in physics.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
no - it is not.
trick0171 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics deals with the interaction of particles at an atomic and subatomic level due to the four fundamental forces of nature. All matter is composed of these particles and all forces are a result of these four forces. It can therefore be postulated that all matter and its interactions, at a micro- or macro- level can be described by quantum mechanics. Of course, physics is not always that linear. However, predictions made using the mathematics of quantum physics are highly (cont)
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
accurate at both a microscopic and macroscopic level, verifying the proposition that quantum mechanics is fundamental at essentially every level of physics.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
I agree with everything your said until your last statement about every level of physics.
no - it is not fundamental at essentially every level of physics.
trick0171 2 years ago
...in other words, what you said prior to the last statement does not "verify the proposition" that you suggest.
trick0171 2 years ago
Are you going to deny both mathematics and experimentation?
Quantum mechanics can describe just about every aspect of physics (quantum gravity is difficult to reconcile). If it can accurately describe physics at every level, then it is unifying. Therefore it is fundamental.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Are you going to deny classical mechanics, and that much of the things we come to with such physics we do not need to know QM regarding?
trick0171 2 years ago
No, in fact, I am highly proficient at classical mechanics. However classical mechanics only works at a large scale, whereas QM works on every scale. The inaccuracy of Newtonian Mechanics at a small scale is also shown by Einstein' theory of relativity. Although we discovered some aspects of physics without QM. QM provides a unifying explanation for physics and helps us better understand discoveries that we have already made.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
The point is that QM only applies to the small scale, and only is required when we need to apply something at that scale. We use classical mechanics to understand how things work at the large scale MOST of the time.
(MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Also, Newtonian Mechanics is not "inaccurate" and we do not know if it is "relativity" that has the problem, if QM is incomplete, or if the two are compatible. To suggest that QM overrides the theory of relativity is incorrect to say the least.
Also, QM does not "provide a unifying explanation for physics".
trick0171 2 years ago
I did not say that relativity "overrides" relativity. They are both extremely compatible theories. At a small scale Newtonian mechanics is highly inaccurate (F=ma does not hold). Practically everything in physics (apart form, at the moment gravity) can be expressed through quantum mechanics. Therefore it unifies all of these aspects of physics. Mathematics and experimentation both indicate that relativity is more accurate than Newtonian physics.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Classical mechanics is used for describing the "motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies". Also dealing with "gases, liquids, solids, and so on".
Much of this QM has little or nothing to say regarding this macroscopic portion.
Also, relativity IS part of classical mechanics - not QM.
trick0171 2 years ago
I didn't say that relativity is part of quantum mechanics. Nor is it part of classical mechanics. Classical mechanics doesn't take into account that at high energies, the mass of a body will change (E=mc^2). Furthermore quantum mechanics is the only mechanical theory that works at low and high quantum numbers. Classical mechanics only works within a certain range of quantum numbers. At very low and very high quantum numbers it doesn't work.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
In classical mechanics, time is taken as universal and constant whereas in relativity it is not. Classical mechanics is not relativistic nor is the idea of space-time.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Again - (of the two major sub-fields) Einstein's mechanics should be lumped in with classical mechanics...not QM.
trick0171 2 years ago
Once again, I did not say that Relativistic mechanics is part of quantum mechanics. However, it is completely separate to classical mechanics. Once again, here's why: Newtonian mechanics considers time and space to be completely separate and also considers time to be invariant. Relativistic mechanics considers time to depend on the state of motion of the observer.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Classical mechanics does not take into account the fact that at high energies, the mass of a body changes, whereas relativistic mechanics does.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
But that (you not lumping in relativity to classical physics) does nothing for your initial premise about QM being fundamental to every level of physics. That is the only statement I am arguing against.
trick0171 2 years ago
As I have said, quantum physics can be used to describe nearly all aspects of physics. Since it is common to nearly every aspect of physics, it is highly probable that it is fundamental i.e. everything phenomenon in physics is at its heart, due to quantum interactions.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
We are going back and fourth here. QM cannot be used to describe nearly all aspects of physics. QM only describes physics at the small scale - not the macroscopic scale. How is that "nearly all aspects of physics"??
trick0171 2 years ago
Because as well as being able to highly accuratley describe the quantum world, it can also be used to describe the macroscopic world. In fact, as I said at high quantum numbers (effectively an extremely large scale) quantum mechanics seems to be the only way to describe it. Classical mechanics will only work for a certain range of quantum numbers, whereas quantum mechanics works for all quantum numbers.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Quantum numbers describe values of conserved quantities in the dynamics of a quantum system. The key here is "quantum system". They do not describe the macroscopic universe. They describe electrons in atoms (energies, angular momentum, spin), etc.
trick0171 2 years ago
But Hamiltonians are used to describe quantum numbers. Hamiltonian mechanics can be generalized to describe both classical and quantum mechanics. Therefore, the hamiltonians in a quantum system can be analogized in a classical system. As a result, quantum numbers can be used to describe classical systems.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
There is a difference between a Hamiltonian (the observable corresponding to the total energy of the system) and Hamiltonian mechanics. HM provides insight into provides insight into the structure of CM and its connection to QM - but it does not go through QM (or quantum numbers) to describe CM.
trick0171 2 years ago
I perfectly understand that the Hamiltonian Mechanics are different. But the point is that both classical and quantum systems can be described in terms of Hamiltonians. These operators are extremely important in Hamiltonian mechanics, the equations of which can be generalized to describe both classical and quantum systems. Therefore, for every quantum description of a system, there is an analogous classical description. However, at very low and high quantum numbers, the classical description is
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Correction: "I understand perfectly that the Hamiltonian operator and Hamiltonian Mechanics are different"
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Finally, relativistic mechanics has been reconciled with quantum mechanics, through the quantum field theory.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
no it has not been "reconciled"
trick0171 2 years ago
Yes it has. Look up relativistic quantum field theory. It is a quantum theory of fields which incorporates Einstein's special relativity. Look up the quantum electrodynamics,
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
I'm not disagreeing with you that QFT incorporates relativity. What I am disagreeing with you on is that is reconciles QM. I big difference. It does not fix the QM/ relativity problem. Regardless, this entire line of discussion is off topic of your initial point. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
I don't get what you mean. Quantum Field Theory describes special relativity through quantum physics. Relativity isn't a problem for quantum physics, but it is a problem classical physics at a large scale.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
QFT provides a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of systems classically described by fields or of many-body systems. It incorporates Einstein's relativity theory, it does not describe it, nor does it solve the problem of QM/relativity.
trick0171 2 years ago
Einstein had two theories of relativity: special and general. Quantum mechanics has been unified with special relativity, as i said (this was first done by Dirac in 1930). However I also acknowledged that quantum physics cannot yet describe gravity (which is involved in general relativity). Special relativity has been combined with quantum mechanics, general relativity has not been.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Agreed. Where I do not agree is that "gravity" is the only thing that QM does not describe. QM does not describe MOST of the things that CM describes. In other words, CM is requires for much of the macroscopic descriptions, QM is not and most of the time is entirely insufficient without CM's descriptions.
trick0171 2 years ago
highly inaccurate whereas the quantum description is always accurate (other than when gravity is involved).
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics actually all systems far more accurately (although on a large scale it could be very tedious, and Newtionian mechanics suffices). Take for example the force between two surfaces in contact, called the normal reaction. Newton did not know what this force was .However, now it is known that it is due to the electromagnetic force between the electrons of the two surfaces. This is a quantum event (the exchange of photons).
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
correction: "Quantum mechanics actually *describes all systems"
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Lets go into particulars then (as I still disagree). How does QM "describe" motion (velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time) of large scale objects? As far as I know this cannot be explained without CM - Newtons first law (Inertia).
trick0171 2 years ago
Comment removed
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
My question asks how it describes motion of large scale objects, not particles at the Quantum level. The de Broglie wave is in regards to the motion of quantum particles.
The point I am making here has to do with where QM is applicable and where CM is applicable because they are not the same. There may be some overlap, but not nearly as much as you are suggesting.
trick0171 2 years ago
Sorry about removing my comment btw. I wanted to formulate an answer for your entire question. I will respond try to respond tomorrow as it is very late where I am. However I will say this. The De Broglie equation can apply to all matter, of any size, because all matter has a wave motion associated with it. However at high masses, the quantum effects become negligible, and it is often more efficient to use the Newtonian equations of motion.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
I agree that it applies to all matter (as all matter is made of atoms) - but it does not apply in a way that answers the questions that CM does. We are not able to explain the motion of large scale objects through our understanding of the motion of particles that make up those objects. I'm off to bed as well. Take care.
trick0171 2 years ago
Many modern sources do include Einstein's mechanics, which in their view represents classical mechanics in its most developed and most accurate form. But even if you do not, it should not be lumped in with QM in any way.
trick0171 2 years ago
Apart from the equation that i already mentioned, newton also thought that the 3 dimensions of space and the dimension of time. In fact, as relativity shows, space and time cannot be separated. Physics has advanced far beyond classical mechanics., which only remains viable at a large scale.
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Relativity is not QM - it is classical mechanics. The idea of space and time not being separate has nothing to do with QM and everything to do with classical mechanics.
trick0171 2 years ago
Apologies, i meant to say that "i did not say QM overrides 'relativity'"
yaysprinkledirt17 2 years ago
Comment removed
trick0171 2 years ago
This video is hilarious.
Do you realize the self-defeating paradox of your own argument?
Who are you speaking to? After all we are nothing but star-dust machines. And so are you.
I will post again later about this. I "have" to go to work now. No choice.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
Evidence exists for free will. One is the ability to think and act on those thoughts. the other is self-awareness and that we are separate from the things we act upon.
Is anybody here going to admit they cannot think? Cannot act on a thought? Are not aware of their own existence? Anybody?
Ahh, but "free will is metaphysical and we live in a purely physical universe. So, therefore, free will cannot exist and our thoughts but illusions." An illusion is a thought just an erroneous one.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
If you want to admit you cannot think, even illusionary ones, then you may personally lack free will.
So, then how to solve the riddle. How can free will exist in a purely physical universe? The answer is that it isn't purely physical. Quantum theory anyone?
Funny, it reminds of when scientists were postulating how the moon was formed. The computer models they came up with weren't working. So, they laughingly concluded they "proved" the moon cannot exist.
Free will does exist.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
There is empirical evidence of it. Now, we just have to find out how it works. I think most of us here have concluded the god or gods theory doesn't work.
And maybe quantum theory also doesn't work. That is yet to be seen despite your hosts arguments.
So, like the existence of the moon, we continue to work on models for free will. Who knows, maybe we'll never find it. Maybe our brains are incapable of fully understanding the universe or multiverse.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
"The answer is that it isn't purely physical. Quantum theory anyone?"
It is called is Quantum Physics for a reason, namely because it is physical. QM also does not rule out causality, but even if it did, it would not help "free will".
(MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Either everything is caused, in which case we cannot "choose" between more than one viable option (so it is not "free"), or there is some randomness involved, in which case (if a thought could come about this way) - would make a thought random and not "free" or "willed".
trick0171 2 years ago
@Trick
As I plan my day tomorrow, there's nothing random about my thought. I also know I can just go to bed and not plan my day now. That's my choice.
I don't understand the origin of free will, but it exists. My knowledge of my own existense is evidence of that.
As I'm not a scientist, I will leave further discoveries, either through QM or otherwise, about how free will works in our seemingly physical universe to them. In the meantime, I'll just allow that I don't know why.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
What amazes me is that we just can't allow that there are some things in the universe we just don't understand yet. They don't fit the models we've created yet.
For theists, it's easy, God does it. But for my fellow atheists, they can't allow that maybe we just don't know why yet.
It would be one thing if there were no evidence of free will, but there is. Thinking and self-awareness demonstrates that.
ObserversEyes 2 years ago
"It would be one thing if there were no evidence of free will, but there is. Thinking and self-awareness demonstrates that."
Thinking and self awareness are not evidence of "free will", anymore than they are evidence of any illusion the mind creates. That is like saying there is evidence that railroad tracks converge at the horizon because that is what the mind sees.
trick0171 2 years ago
It is common to confuse "thinking" or "self awareness" with "free will". They are completely seperate. Free will is not a requirement of thinking or that thinking producing an awareness. Those are items that just come about through causal chains, and they are inevitable. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
I don't believe in free will (maybe if someone could tell me what it is I might start), but you're stating things you don't know as fact in this video and being overly presumptious.
mousetrench 2 years ago
wrong, transister is not explicable by newtonian physics... that's just false.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
you tell 'im.
1PostPoMoMaN1 2 years ago
the transister is explained by quantum physics, end of story...
pyrrho314 2 years ago
That is not what he said. He said that the INVENTION of the transister did not have anything to do with QM theory. Anything that utilizes electrons can have some explanetory power using QM, but that is besides the actual invention which came about through experimentation using metal and a semiconductor.
trick0171 2 years ago
it's explained by quantum mechanics. And all technology is verified by experiment and not fully understood. But QM is definitely used to improve the transister... what the point of trying to make up some exclusion, in combination with claiming NEWTONIAN physics of all things explains it.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
The point that Gary was making had to do with the video to the side that he lionked which blatently lies about the history of the transistor to make QM out to be something it is not...that is all. Quantum experimentation was not required for the invention of it (going from tunes to transisters)...period.
trick0171 2 years ago
*tubes
trick0171 2 years ago
I disagree, I don't think it's coincidental that QM preceded invention of the transistor. While it was built with trial and error, WHAT they tried was not random, and was not uninfluenced by QM and the modern physics of the time. Do you deny the inventors of the transistor were aware of an well educated in QM?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
John Bardeen, William Shockley, and Walter Brattain, scientists at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey invented the first transistor. Please read about how this came about because it was done by substance trial and error for a contact point lead, and no QM was involved.
trick0171 2 years ago
so you claim they did this in isolation of knowledge about QM. They had no idea that QM effects were possible to induce? And so the fact that QM explains the transistor was isolated from the reality? You didn't answer this part of my question. I already said I agreed trial and error was used and is ALWAYS used to create tech from science.
How important is it given that ONLY QM explains how it works, and QM has been used to improve it.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I stand corrected on this particular subject. It appears after more research in a number of sources that knowledge regarding the wavefunction from QM was a key factor in the initial development of the transistor.
I spoke too soon with only limited knowledge of the "transistor" subject. Whoops. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
thanks, my respect for your ability to see a flaw in your argument raises my esteem for you well beyond the cost of having had a flaw in the first place... flaws are a dime a dozen, and found in the best of ideas, while honesty and intellectual bravery is far more rare. Cheers.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
God doesn't throw dice.
sleepingeye 2 years ago
chemicals
LordoftheJamesClan 2 years ago
What makes the brain different to other items limited by causality?
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
Comment removed
stewieforking 2 years ago
I couldn't help but laugh at the 5:00 video effect.
CivilHuman 2 years ago
Hi mr. Alien.
I guess you wanted an answer from Gary, but I will give you mine as I agree with Gary on this issue.
In order to prove free will we need to prove an effect that is an uncaused causer. Not only that, but the intrinsic system of that effect has to be outside of our current paradigm of causality all togheter. This leaves us with pretty much no alternative then to see the concept of free will as a human illusionary construct.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
More or less perfect. More then less.
However, I feel the uncaused causer congregation is going to stay put on their quantum mechanics for a long, LONG time.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
yea... and if even the slightest bit of the math is an incorrect representation of reality then the whole image is completely WRONG.
krishields 2 years ago
Uncertainty principle is that we don't even know enough to call them "particles." Whatever reality is at the quantum level, it is equally particle and wave depending on what property we are measuring for (momentum, velocity, etc).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
You are wrong about this. The behavior of water molecules proves it. The exact positions of the electrons about the molecule is a quantum and incalculable determinant of the "flip."
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
"'You are wrong about this. The behavior of water molecules proves it. The exact positions of the electrons about the molecule is a quantum and incalculable determinant of the "flip."'"
Could you please provide the source of this information?
djancak 2 years ago
Not directly. The behavior of water molocules is usually well-described in biochemisy texts, but the quantum basis for the behavior usually must be inferred (at least it was so in my textbook) since that is not the point in biochemistry. It's an easy inferrence, however. The charge differential that causes the "flip" has to be due to the electron distribution.
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
The point of the video is that a computer does not do any operation outside of cause and effect.
There is no report on computers to act outside of the desired outcome, and when it is, we locate the flaw using our understanding of empiricist reality. Why would the brain move outside of causality?
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
I don't agree that you have pegged the point of the video. I would say the point was that "quantum theory is bunk."
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
No, the point of the video is that there is no free will. Quantum theory is not bunk, but most fail to realize that quantum theory does not say that causuality does not apply to atomic structures. Quantum theory works on a sub atomic level.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
There's little point in arguing what the point is, as he could answer for himself if he wished to. Since I made a video stating specifically that quantum theory works at the sub-atomic level, and care must be taken in making analogies that apply to the macro-world, I'd say it's clear that I realize that. Nevertheless, there is an interface. There must be, since quantum behavior affects the states of molecules and molecules affect the states of structures.
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
When said evidence and the causualization of quantum mechanics and empiricist paradigm is proven I am all with you. However, causalization is the key. I have yet to hear an actual quantum physicist say that quantum particles are not subject to the laws of the universe. Not understanding effect does not mean "it is not caused".
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
I have not heard any physists say that quantum particles are not subject to the laws of the universe, either. I have heard them say that the applicable laws are quite different from the laws which apply on the macro scale. The only way to test anything having to do with the argument here would require the ability to rewind time. hit replay. and see if eveything replayed the same way or not.
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
Yes.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
shit man, as much of a cynical bastard as you are, I'm really diggin your videos...
yeah
keep it the fuck up
Ipoonthecasbah 2 years ago
Great video, somewhat ahead of it's time, for youtube anyways, not enough people are debunking quantum mysticism right now I mean.
BrianShaneRushton 2 years ago
great explanation of quantum mechanics!
love the pinch and the wobble effects.
djancak 2 years ago
LOL @ the effects
vickmackey24 2 years ago
btw, whilst I was arguing for determinism against randomness with someone in my philosophy class,
I did also come up with this idea of a machine with this fixed rate which would allow the dice to fall on a specific numb