[ExI] Humans losing freewill

[William Flynn Wallace]

>From the viewpoint of any observer anywhere in the multiverse ( in other
words from any possible
​
observer) determinism locality
​
and realism cannot all be true, at least one must be wrong.
​

John K Clark​

I have to give up here and stop.  If you are going to throw quantum theory
at me, I am defenseless.  I will add that we are talking about some things
that possibly will never be proven.  Someone spoke something like this:
 The universe is more complex than we *can* know.

A million years, a billion years - we will never know everything.  So I
think I will hold on to the theories that please me, and why not?

bill w

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 20 November 2016 at 13:05, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> I agree that no action is random, but maintain that all actions are
>>> determined.
>>
>>
>> ​There is nothing in logic that demands every event have a cause, quantum
>> mechanics says true randomness exists and from experiment, specifically the
>> observation that Bell's inequality is violated, we know that AT LEAST one
>> of the following 3 concepts about the universe must be untrue:
>>
>> 1) Determinism (everything has a cause and thus nothing is random)
>>
>> 2) Locality (the
>> future can not change the past and distance diminishes the strength and
>> speed of an effect
>> ​)​
>>
>> 3) Realism (
>> things are in a definite state even if they
>> ​are not being observed) ​
>>
>> I'd like all three
>> ​ ​
>> ​to be true
>> but if I had to give up one of them (and I do)
>> ​ then​
>> I'd give up determinism
>> ​;
>> ​t​
>> o my mind it would be the least disturbing, and giving up
>> ​realism​
>>  would be the most disturbing
>> ​.​
>>
>> ​But
>>  the universe may not agree with me so for all I know all 3 may be false
>> ​.
>>
>> ​If ​
>> the Everett
>> ​
>> interpretation
>> ​ is true then ​
>> from a point of view that
>> ​ can
>> not
>> ​
>> exist, like the viewpoint
>> ​
>> of
>> ​ ​
>> ​
>> somebody
>> ​
>> standing outside
>> ​
>> of
>> ​
>> the multiverse looking
>> ​
>> back in
>> ​
>> at it
>> ​,
>> all 3 of those attributes, locality
>> ​
>> ​
>> determinism and realism,
>> ​
>> can exist together;
>> ​
>> but
>> ​say I said ​
>> that is a viewpoint that can not exist
>> ​.​
>> ​
>> So
>> ​that's like
>> saying if 2+2=5 then 2+2+2=7.
>> ​
>> From the viewpoint of any observer anywhere in the multiverse ( in other
>> words from any possible
>> ​
>> observer) determinism locality
>> ​
>> and realism cannot all be true, at least one must be wrong.
>> ​
>>
>
> The latter is what Bruno Marchal has called the "first person
> indeterminacy". The multiverse is entirely deterministic, but an observer
> embedded in the multiverse will see intractable randomness, because he does
> not know in which branch he will end up, and not even God can tell him.
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161120/e83d479f/attachment.html>