On free will:

[Icebreaker]

We are chemical reactions walking around in a bag. We do not have free will.

 

[Syncline]

I agree with that but how does one rule out the notion that physics equations predict how every iota of reality will behave, including the electrons and neurotransmitters in our brains which, presumably, are that which makes the choices you mentioned?

In a world where everything can be predicted, there is no free will except that induced by ignorance of the future would make it seem like genuine free will.

But then again, doesn't the uncertainty principle imply that not everything can be predicted already, thus lending credibility to the notion of free will?

1) Physics equasions are really quite bad at predicting how the whole universe will behave.
It is currently fair at predicting our local enviroment out to a few lightyears and can "see" clear back to milliseconds before the Big Bang.
200 years ago it barely predicted events on our own world and back a few thousand years.
Less than 1000 years ago it frequently failed to predict events at the tabletop level and had no idea what happened ten minutes ago anywhere else. Things change fast in this field, and who knows what science will learn in another century.

2.) The vast majority of the contents of this universe are completely invisible and undetectable to us at this time. What we currently call dark matter and dark energy, for example. The is no good evidence it exists, but we hypothesize that it must, and as yet we have no hard scientific data on how any of this material behaves. The realm of human thought might just as well fit into this category as into fantasy.

3. As we study large systems (like the weather or the operations of a brain), we discover that the larger the system, the more sensitive it is to initial conditions. This is the very soul of chaos theory. This is quite possibly a major root of human individuality and human thought.

4. We never know everything about anything, because, as you mentioned, all objects in the universe interact, and measuring one part of any one object changes other parts of that object(i.e. Heisenberg uncertanty). Conscious thought is similarly difficult to pin down, and is quite possibly a quantum effect as well. Some research seems to support this idea.

I am often puzzled by discussions of this sort. Most often, all we really know scientifically about human thought is our complete ignorance of how it works.
Observe the research standards accepted in hard sciences versus studies of human beings. 5% versus 10%. You might call that difference in standards the variable caused by human free will interacting with the experiment.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Syncline your whole argument here depends on interpreting "scientific laws" as "aprticular laws that we can infer and know about". But the mere idea that the universe be differntiable twice (it may of course not be, but GR is inifinitelly differentiable and string theory is analytic except at a finite set of points) then the Cauchy-Kovalevska theorem gaurantees that if you know the value of some field and its derivatives at some point of spacetime, then you (assuming you have perfect perception and infinite storage) can predict every value of it in the future cone of that point. So we don't have to know the universe over the horizon to be deterministic in our own future light cone.

 

[g[x]]

think about it, every pattern in the universe is its own closed system, so a human is a closed system in itself.
which means the human is the only one making the decision.
you can't "blame" these actions on a deterministic system, simply because the person has emotions and thoughts that reflect what these actions consequences will be.

I beg to differ... this could be construed as offtopic, but this is a very flawed assumption. Human beings are in no way closed systems. Much of our behavior is determined by our environment and response to external stimuli. Indeed, our very definition of self relies on the relationship we perceive between our 'selves' and other persons, objects, etc. Also, the very fact that you exist changes reality, not only on the quantum, micro level, but the macro as well.

I understand your point about human beings being able to make their own internal decisions, regardless of outside stimuli, however, to say that a human being is a closed system is a complete fallacy.

Just wanted to bring this to light.

 

[Rybo]

Universe only closed but perpetual motion machine/teechnology

I beg to differ... this could be construed as offtopic, but this is a very flawed assumption. Human beings are in no way closed systems. .

I agree GX, Physical Universe is the only closed system. Physical Unvierse is the only perpetual motion machine/technology.

Here below is link to the "Edges" World Question of "what do you believe but cannot prove". Loops Quantum gravity theoretical physicist Lee Smolin is on this page along with others.
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html#venter

You can scroll to see if your favorite scientist is listed.

Rybo

 

[g[x]]

Loops Quantum gravity theoretical physicist Lee Smolin is on this page along with others.

Lee Smolin wrote The Elegant Universe, one of my favs. Good stuff.

 

[Rybo]

Life of the Comos

Lee Smolin wrote The Elegant Universe, one of my favs. Good stuff.

No Gx, Lee Smolins only other book is "Life of the Cosmos" (an evolving physical and metaphyscial Universe) with a less determinant(more free will-like) facets/aspects type of Uiverse and more evolutionary

Brian Green wrote "The Elegant Universe" and his last book "the Fabric of the Cosmos". There hs states "Free will is a tricky issue, even absent the complicating factor of time travel" He goes on to say he is convince in a deterministic Universe.

I ay Universe is only deterministic only to the point of not violating eternal laws/cosmic priniples, but, particles at mirco and macro level can be steered to some degree by humans.

Here is my web site.
http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/index.html [Broken]

Not much on free will information there but plenty of "thinking outside the box" type ideas.

Rybo

 

[g[x]]

No Gx, Lee Smolins only other book is "Life of the Cosmos" (an evolving physical and metaphyscial Universe) with a less determinant(more free will-like) facets/aspects type of Uiverse and more evolutionary

Brian Green wrote "The Elegant Universe" and his last book "the Fabric of the Cosmos". There hs states "Free will is a tricky issue, even absent the complicating factor of time travel" He goes on to say he is convince in a deterministic Universe.

My apologies, you are absolutely correct. I have a hellacious cold and am not in possession of my full faculties. Thank you for correcting that... I did mean to say "Life of the Cosmos." Bah, I hate being sick... :grumpy:

 

[Rybo]

Apology for minor info errors uneccessary

My apologies, you are absolutely correct. I have a hellacious cold and am not in possession of my full faculties. Thank you for correcting that... I did mean to say "Life of the Cosmos." Bah, I hate being sick... :grumpy:

No need to apologize for minor error Gx.
Free will and placebos ergo mind over matter, to some degree, is a real phenomena as proved by experiments.

Im always amazed at these blind placebo experiments were people get better from there illness, real or illusionary, from merely believing the pill they have been given i swell knon to solve their proble.

The latest one I read had to do with the color of the pill. People where given a blue and red pill. They were told the red ones were known to make people agressive-like behaviors and teh blues ones were proven to have a calming effect.

I forget the exact experiment conditions but the blue or red pill either had no pyscho-active ingredients or they were oppossite of waht people were told, but, of course, the power of persuasion worked a high percentage of the time.

My adivce, --"and of course it is well documented in the professional medical community including herbalk doctors"--,is that if you take dark honey with your pill(s) their, physilogical effects will be ehanced by over 8,000 percent. Trust me ) It will make you feel better before the day is over.

Rybo

 

[g[x]]

No need to apologize for minor error Gx.
Free will and placebos ergo mind over matter, to some degree, is a real phenomena as proved by experiments.

Im always amazed at these blind placebo experiments were people get better from there illness, real or illusionary, from merely believing the pill they have been given i swell knon to solve their proble.

Fascinating indeed. What scientific method is there to quantize belief? The logical side brings to mind possible effects of hormonal activity, caused by strong emotion or stress, which in turn might cause various chemical changes inducing some kind of psychosomatic response, seemingly a spontaneous immunal reaction... but the link between where thoughts of presumed effects originates, implanted by another or created on one's own, and where the actual biochemical responses occur, remains elusive.

In any case, goodwill never seemed to hurt... and neither did a little honey.

 

[Rybo]

Judegment may quantisize as gravitons, clustering as photons?

Fascinating indeed. What scientific method is there to quantize belief? The logical side brings to mind possible effects of hormonal activity, caused by strong emotion or stress, which in turn might cause various chemical changes inducing some kind of psychosomatic response, seemingly a spontaneous immunal reaction... but the link between where thoughts of presumed effects originates, implanted by another or created on one's own, and where the actual biochemical responses occur, remains elusive.
In any case, goodwill never seemed to hurt... and neither did a little honey.

One of FUllers books he states that perhaps humans send out some frequency of EM signals via the eyeball and these signals go out and bounce of some celestial object, only to be reflected back to Earth, hundreds, thousand or millions of years later, whereupon we have thught occur in our mind.

Fuller had some far-fecthed ideas, true or not. I dunno.
Im more inlcined to think two humans resonant at some EM frequency or gravitaitional frequency to share the same thought if not actual telepathy of some sort.

Honey does work as a disfectant which is to say that most bacteria do not thrive in 100% honey enviroment.

Finally here is a poem of mine regarding quantisizing and judgement.

Lifes Irregularities” [poemetry)
Rybo6 alias Os_jbug

A perfect circle (2-Dimensional)
Slices through at midesction, (equatorial bisection)
A pure sphere (3-Dimensional volume),
And attracts the attention (quantum observation),
Of a nearly neutral mind (non-judgement/non-quantification).

Life sputters(aberration as order),
Stars spasm (aberration as disorder),
Inward we are pulled (division by inversion)
Outward we evolve (multiplication by division).

Mother nature (Universe/God{des)
Experiences irregularity (dis-equilibrium)
And what was a waff (wave pattern),
Becomes a waffle (physics/physical).

A quivered matrix (vibrating points, angle and frequency),
Comes into sight (energetic aberration)
A patterned 4, maybe more (polyvertexia of 4 corners or more),
Interrelated, in-da-net (omni-embracing gravity net).

E = Mc2, E = mail (trancievance/transmutation),
Eeeeeeeeeeee! (Yaarrrrkkkkk!),
Equals sound (transposed as text),
Even in silence. (near silence)

Return too neutral (near equilibrium),
Pure and perfect (centered equilibrium),
Return too sender (eternally recursive/recycling Universe).

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

We are chemical reactions walking around in a bag. We do not have free will.

I've have never heard of a chemical reaction wanting to do up their hair so they look nice, or want to be with another chemical reaction because that chemical reaction makes them feel good about their outward appearance. Nor have I seen a chemical reaction find beuty in the world, or make up an interpersonal idea that his being is simply a chemical reaction.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[Rybo]

Couldnt hav said it better

I've have never heard of a chemical reaction wanting to do up their hair so they look nice, or want to be with another chemical reaction because that chemical reaction makes them feel good about their outward appearance. Nor have I seen a chemical reaction find beuty in the world, or make up an interpersonal idea that his being is simply a chemical reaction.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

I agree.
Mind is the "prime creation” {meta....physical.....mind}

Universe “IS" the creating {really big eternal party}.

Grandpa is the "big passing of time" {lag rates of brain cognition}.

Grandma is the "big manager of time" {slightly more complex rates of cognition}.

God{es}/female is the “Big Grunt” {bearer of Universal progeny}.

God/male (male) is the “Big Bang” {seed of change}.

Teenageres are the "big hormonal change," influenced by all vibrational patterns, thus leading to conscious, oscillating states of 'knowing it all' and having many strong strong oppinions about it all or ‘utterly confused' about it all.

Babies are the "Little-Big Ego Trip" {and they know it}.

Fetus just "IS" and they dont know it.

X chromosome is the "Big Bonding" with other X's and attracts the Y.

Y chromosome is the "Big Head" (testosterone) that bonds with a X and on occasion another Y.

Molecules are the "Big Orgy” of attraction and repulsions called chemsistry.

Atoms are the "Little Uncertainties" which bond together to become
the “'matter' of fact.”

Photons appear to be not what they statiscally claim to be ergo they are a big uncertainty.

Gravitons (quasi-physical) are the "Great Embracement." Massively
attractive too all, but too all, they do not light.

Rybo