Determinism, Molyneux and government

Refuting the usual stuff on determinism, what should a theory about reality look like and a comparison between the free will 'I' and government

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• free will
• determinism
• molyneux
• government

[blackacidlizzard]

In Molyneuxland, determinism is the belief that everything is impervious to cause and effect.

[modelmark]

@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.

[SlaveryEvolves]

@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.

[modelmark]

@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.

[SlaveryEvolves]

@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.

[modelmark]

@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.

[SlaveryEvolves]

@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.

[modelmark]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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)

[modelmark]

@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?