[ExI] Free will was: Everett worlds

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 14 16:20:26 UTC 2020


 And those neurons either fired in that way for a reason in which case it
was deterministic, or they fired in that way for no reason at all in which
case it was random. John

I do not believe that anything that happens in the brain is random.  Every
effect has a cause, so I would say that they fired that way because there
was no DISCERNABLE reason.   Random is just a word for our ignorance.  bill
w

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:34 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 3:49 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> >> All it requires is one universal wave function that evolves
>>> as Schrodinger's deterministic equation says wave functions should evolve.
>>>  That's it.
>>
>>
>>
>> *> But Schrodinger's equation is time-dependent so that would imply
>> some sort of multiversal absolute time. Something that
>> Einstein demonstrated was impossible. Didn't he?*
>
>
> No, Einstein demonstrated it was unnecessary, but as I have said General
> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible theories, although both
> work very well within their realm of applicability, General Relativity
> works great for gravity but can say nothing about the nuclear forces,
> quantum mechanics can say a lot about the nuclear forces but can't say
> anything about gravity. One theory works for things that are large and
> massive and the other theory works for things that are small and light, the
> problem is that there are places where things are both small and massive,
> and in those places physics has no idea what's going on.  Resolving the
> contradiction between these two very good theories is probably the main
> goal of modern physics, and it's not going to happen until somebody
> develops a quantum theory of gravity.
>
> *> If calling it "free will" bothers you, why not call it "agency"
>> instead?*
>
>
> And who has agency? Somebody who has free will. And who has free will?
> Somebody who has agency. And round and round we go.
>
> *> **I have to assume at some point in your life you did something that
>> you perceived that your mind was responsible for having you do? *
>
>
> Mind is what the brain does, so if my brain caused me to turn left rather
> than right it must've been because neurons firing in my brain caused me to
> do it. And those neurons either fired in that way for a reason in which
> case it was deterministic, or they fired in that way for no reason at all
> in which case it was random.
>
>
>> *> Like perhaps replying to this email for example? What do you want
>> to call that? Or do you not believe you have choices? Do you believe the
>> future is already written?*
>
>
> If there is no way to predict even in theory what's going to happen next and
> the only way to find out is to wait and see then it doesn't really matter
> if the future is already written or not, it's not even clear what "already
> written" could mean.  And we know for a fact that things like that do
> exist, for example it would be easy to set up a Turing Machine to find the
> first even number that is not the sum of two primes and then stop, but I
> can't predict what this very simple machine will do even in theory, all I
> can do is watch and wait and see what it does, and I might be waiting
> forever.
>
>  >> It could be that the Real Numbers are not really real because there
>>> are only about 10^83 atoms in the observable universe and physics has
>>> never discovered a googolplex number of anything much less a aleph-0 or
>>> aleph-1 infinite number of them.
>>
>>
>> *> Sure it has: The Hamiltonian for those 10^83 atoms has ((10^83)^2
>> - 10^83)/2 = 5*10^165 potential energy terms for those atoms,*
>
>
> Your number is a 5 followed by 165 zeros, a googolplex is 10^(10^100),
> that's a 1 followed by 10^100 zeros. Saying that one number is
> astronomically larger than the other would be a vast understatement, but
> that's about the strongest word the English language provides. Compared to
> a googolplex 5*10^165 is zero to a wonderfully good approximation.
>
>>
> > If uncomputable numbers are physically manifest then our physical eyes should
>>> see evidence for at least one of them being at work in the physical universe,
>>> but so far there is no such evidence.
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> *> Maybe the physical manifestation of uncomputable numbers
>> are responsible for the huge number of paranormal experiences people
>> have claimed to have had consistently over many centuries of
>> recorded history. Stuff like UFOs, bigfoot, and ghosts not to mention Jesus
>> on the way to Damascus?*
>
>
> Or maybe not!
>
> >> I think it would be a mistake, the same sort of mistake Plato made, to
>>> say the physical hypotenuse of a cardboard square is just an
>>> approximation of he hypotenuse of the abstract unit square, I think it
>>> would be much more accurate to say the hypotenuse of the abstract unit
>>> square is just an approximation of the hypotenuse of a physical
>>> cardboard square. Approximations are simpler than the real deal, and a
>>> computer model of a hurricane is much simpler than a real physical
>>> hurricane.
>>
>>
>> *> Mistake? Plato could have been right. Why would you use something
>> so crude as a cardboard square to test something so precise?*
>
>
> Because no physicist has ever seen a mathematical hypotenuse, however they
> have seen lines that connect diagonal corners on cardboard squares.
> Mathematics is the language of physics but mathematics is not physics.
> English is a language too but the English word "*cow*" cannot give milk.
>
> > Theories are only useful when they can make testable predictions, when
>>> they start predicting infinities that robs them of their ability to do
>>> that. The Planck scale Is the point where Quantum Mechanics stops being
>>> useful, and the center of a Black Hole marks the point where General
>>> Relativity stops being useful. What if anything goes on a scale smaller
>>> than the Planck scale and at the center of black holes is unknown.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *> I think that if two theories that have never been falsified
>> both independently stop being useful in a place that cannot be
>> observed, even in principle, then maybe it is a mistake to assume that
>> anything goes on in that place at all.*
>
>
> Something was certainly going on during the first few nanoseconds of the
> Big Bang because it eventually produce the universe we see today, but we
> don't know what was going on because at time things were very small and
> very dense and very massive, and neither General Relativity or Quantum
> Mechanics can say what happens in situations like that. But something sure
> is hell was going on. We need to find a way to resolve the inherent
> contradiction between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but that's
> not gonna happen until somebody finds a quantum theory of gravity.
>
> >> What exactly is it that people do that cuckoo clocks don't? There is nothing
>>> mystical about a "decision", it was either made for a reason in which
>>> case we call it a rational decision, or it was made for no reason in
>>> which case we call it a irrational decision.
>>
>>
>> *>Cuckoo clocks cannot split universes by chiming every possible hour
>> at once for starters.*
>
>
> Some cuckoo clocks just keep chiming continuously and won't stop until
> they run out of energy, human beings would call such a thing a malfunction
> but it's still just cause and effect; For one reason or another one part of
> the clock is now different from what it was before (a break in the drive
> wheel or whatever) and so it behaves differently than the it did before. In
> one Everett universe the drive wheel broke and in another it did not.
>
> > >>
>> * In other words, things that make decisions, always do so deliberately.**
>> >> And a thing does something deliberately if it has decided to do so.
>> And round and round we go.
>>
>> *> Not quite. All agents have a purpose when making decisions,*
>
>
> And what is a purpose?  The reason something is done. And what is a
> reason? A cause. What comes after a cause? An effect .
>
>
>> >>> So for example in nature, temperatures dropping precipitously could never
>> directly cause the spontaneous combustion of fuel.*
>>
>> >> Not so, all that would be needed for that to happen would be a
>> battery, a thermostat and a match head.
>>
>>
>> *> The unlikely confluence of all those components speaks of purpose
>> and intent. Both hallmarks of agency.*
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the words purpose, intent or agency, but
> whatever you mean by them do you think a Turing Machine would be incapable
> of embodying those qualities?
>
> John K Clark
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200914/95ae5def/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list