Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 08-07-2002, 10:41 PM

Mu...

I would say that if it appear random, we have a good reason to assume that it is random. There is no point in saying that a system exist, when no system is present to us.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

Agent_O · 08-08-2002, 07:06 PM

Here are a couple of thoughts. First I wanted to point out an interesting side note to the QM debate. It was stated quite a few messages ago that quantum effects are limited wholly to the very small world. This isn't the case. Though the two-slit experiment hasn't been done in the macroscopic world, other quantum effects have been so observed. A superconducting cylinder under special conditions will have at least some of the properties of a quantum particle even if the cylinder is a metre long. A rotating vat of super-cooled helium will experience increases in angular momentum in states, not as a function of acceleration.
If quantum effects can occur in the macroscopic world, they may also occur in the microscopic world (namely in the neurons of the brain). This idea was posed a while back by the philospher Penrose, and is not really so far-fetched as you think. The implications this may have for determinism, and incidentally for the role of the observer in observed phenomenon are not entirely relevant here, but certainly should give some food for thought.

As to determinism itself, really I'm glad someone finally got some rigour back into the definition. The classic test for hard determinism is the "calculation" test, which was already mentioned here. To summarize quickly:

If one were completely aware of the entire state of the universe at any given question, one could predict the future of the universe precisely.

The first problem with this is the one everybody takes for granted: How can anything or one within the system of a universe actually acquire this knowledge? The answer to this of course is that it's impossible.

Next, we say "well pretend there's some God who is outside of the universe, who can look into that universe, collect the data and run a program." Nobody here would seriously argue that this is actually the case, but it makes an interesting thought experiment. Except that we are talking about the universe here and what's inside of it. To say that some entity could determine our universe is meaningless, and thus for us to talk about our universe being determinant is also meaningless. Anyone with the brain-power can contemplate his navel, scratch her head, frown and say "You know, I think the universe is determinant, here's why..." But you can't test it, you can't experiment with it, you can't really even conceive of it, so it doesn't have a substantive meaning. It's metaphysics.

Okay, enough ranting.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Agent_O ]

Bill · 08-08-2002, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
That is potentially an argument for abandoning strict determinism in favour of probablistic determinism, but there is always the possibility that it only appears to be probablistic and is in fact strictly determined. Does it really matter which is the case? I don't think so.

I agree with this view.

All probability that we can actually measure is only indeterminate from the perspective of human abilities to adequately perceive and predict the outcome. While there are hints from quantum mechanics to the effect that this might not obtain at the super-small scales of quantum mechanics, there are also counter-hints that the perceived indeterminancies are really just illusions. If you can accept Einstein's theory of relativity (which uses time as a dimension of space), then it is just as rational to use John Cramer's <a href="http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html" target="_blank">Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics</a>, which is fully deterministic, as the model for constructing a new quantum theory that just might (eventually) be reconciled with relativity. Cramer postulates a "handshake" wave function by which the future communicates to the past. The abstract at the above URL reads:

Quote:

The interpretational problems of quantum mechanics are considered. The way in which the standard Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics deals with these problems is reviewed. A new interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the Transactional Interpretation (TI), is presented. The basic element of TI is the transaction describing a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The TI is explicitly nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell Inequality, yet is relativistically invariant and fully causal. A detailed comparison of the TI and CI is made in the context of well known quantum mechanical gedanken experiments and "paradoxes". The TI permits quantum mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves physically present in space rather than as "mathematical representations of knowledge" as in the CI. The TI is shown to provide insight into the complex character of the quantum mechanical state vector and the mechanism associated with its "collapse". The TI also leads in a natural way to justification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Born probability law [P=*], basic elements of the CI.

When discussing causality, Cramer's paper says this:

Quote:

The obvious "backwards in time" character of the transaction model warrants careful consideration of whether causality is preserved. In a sense the TI tells us that absorber "causes" the transaction which precedes it in time sequence, in violation of cause-before-effect. To come to terms with this aspect of the TI it is necessary to carefully consider the nature of causality and the physical evidence which supports it. In a previous paper (<a href="http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_ref.html#Cramer-80" target="_blank">Cramer, 1980</a>) we have made the distinction between the strong principle of causality, which asserts that a cause must always precede its effect in any reference frame, and the weak principle of causality, which asserts the same thing, but only as it applies to macroscopic observations and to observer to observer communication. There is no present experimental evidence in support of any causal principle which is stronger than the weak principle.

The TI is completely consistent with the weak principle of causality. As discussed previously, the completion of the transaction removes all interacting advanced fields except the one connecting emitter with absorber, and the remaining advanced/retarded superposition can be reinterpreted as purely retarded. Thus there are no "advanced effects", no evident acausal behavior even at the microscopic level. Dispersion relations, etc., are completely consistent with microcausality as it is conventionally interpreted.

Nature, in a very subtle way, may be engaging in backwards-in-time handshaking. But the use of this mechanism is not available to experimental investigators even at the microscopic level. The completed transaction erases all advanced effects, so that no advanced wave signalling is possible. The future can effect the past only very indirectly, by offering possibilities for transactions.

This supports Tronvillian's view that it does not really matter to us (because we clearly live at the macro level) which is true: a fully causal operation at the micro level, as per Cramer, above, or else a probabilitistic operation at the micro level, as per the Copenhagen Interpretation. Either way, the outcome is fully determined by the time we actually observe any outcome.

== Bill

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]

popeontheropes · 08-11-2002, 10:23 AM

Ah, how virulent the determinism bug is! I came to the same understanding as you when I first embarked on these ideas, but nevertheless they are wrong. "the observation of the system is one of the determining principles." Yes indeed, but now we are speaking of two separate issues.
Claim One: By observing a system we change the system. By the *human mind* seeing the system, the system changes.

Claim Two: By observing a system we change the system. By making the system observable by the human mind we must use microscopes etc., and it is the microscopes that really change the system (not the human mind in some mysterious way).

I mentioned this issue in my last post just because it seems to be a popular confusion. Way too many eastern mystic/quantum physics books have been based around the absurd "claim one" above. However, this does not have anything to do with determinism. Both claims are deterministic (or can be).

how does the human mind function ? it functions as a physical process of synaptic firings drawing on stored chemical information and constant creation and reordering of new and stored chemical information . it is a physical process. with that in mind , it is not ' absurd' to say that the observation could have an affect on the observed. we are after all speaking of an electron...one single electron.
what i mean is that if you exist as a phisical being on this planet then you are , in some way, "in contact" with every thing else on this planet and ultimately in the univers. you could follow a chain of air molecules to a tree and a chain of it's molecules to the bird flying around a mile up in the sky and a chain of it's molecules to the air on the other side of it (relative to the tree's position and yours) and continue to follow that chain all the way to the surface of the moon. now, i am not saying that you can wave your hand and rais a dust cloud on the surface of the moon...however , engaging in thought in the close proximity of the electron that will pass through one of two doors could affect it's progress and trajectory towards one door or the other . and if the electron were absolutlyu shielded from all possible interference it would go straight ahead in to the wall between the two doors , assuming it came out of the chamber dead straight . the electron is inert and therefore has no abillity to chose it's path. where it goes is absolutly determined by what it encounters along the way and the manner in which it interacts with whatever it encountered.
magnetism can be used to steer the electron. all materials have some magnetic properties. this includes humans but our electromagnetism fluctuates depending on how much activity there is within our physical system...i.e. excitement will cause more , calm will produce less.

Here is our issue:

Claim A: An isolated* particle will move with a path not strictly determined by any causes.

absolute isolation will allow the particle to move in a straight line . so,then, the particles trajectory will determine it's path

Claim B: An isolated* particle will move with a path strictly determined by preceding causes, but knowledge of these causes is beyond our research abilities.

true

*I say "isolated" particle because that is the only time these non-deterministic effects occur.

on the issue of free will, we are constantly confronted with choice. with out freewill choices would be impossible to make or simply not exist .it would all be very mechanical and predictable. life is anything but predictable and i certainly don't believe that my actions are all predetermined and that i function as some sort of robot ,doing what i do in order to setup the situation in which someone else can do whathey need to do ...like some elaborate game of "mouse trap" . i do as i wish. if iwanted hunt someone down and kill them ..i could. if i want to go to the store and buy a twinlie , i can. if i want to strap myself to the space shuttle and ride it to my death in oputer space , it is all my choice.
I am leaving room here for the intangible existance of the soul, or spirit or consciousness. from the time you become aware of your self and your thoughts and feelings.. you experience thoughts and feelings that exist in stark contrast to what you have been taught. certain things just don't seem right or seem completely right to the extent that there is effectively, no other choice, even though the choices are ,indeed ,infinite. with out freewill , what is the point?

0n0w1c · 08-11-2002, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by popeontheropes:

on the issue of free will, we are constantly confronted with choice. with out freewill choices would be impossible to make or simply not exist .it would all be very mechanical and predictable. life is anything but predictable and i certainly don't believe that my actions are all predetermined and that i function as some sort of robot ,doing what i do in order to setup the situation in which someone else can do whathey need to do ...like some elaborate game of "mouse trap" . i do as i wish. if iwanted hunt someone down and kill them ..i could. if i want to go to the store and buy a twinlie , i can. if i want to strap myself to the space shuttle and ride it to my death in oputer space , it is all my choice.
I am leaving room here for the intangible existance of the soul, or spirit or consciousness. from the time you become aware of your self and your thoughts and feelings.. you experience thoughts and feelings that exist in stark contrast to what you have been taught. certain things just don't seem right or seem completely right to the extent that there is effectively, no other choice, even though the choices are ,indeed ,infinite. with out freewill , what is the point?

i was with you until you wrote the above... ask yourself how do you want to do something. you have reasons (wants, desires, needs)... the reasons are the "determining factor". if you could turn time back 15 sec after every decision and play it out again, you would always make the same choice... why? because you had reasons to make the choice.
every choice taken (effect), starts with a choice to be made (cause). you would not make a choice if the choice was not presented first.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]

popeontheropes · 08-12-2002, 03:33 PM

i see what you are trying to say, however, i do not ,quite , understand your premiss..

are you saying that everything i do is *predetermined* by some sort of cosmic code ?
***code = programming****
because then you really are stepping out on the limb of destiny and the existance of a higher power that is in control of all of our existances.

or do you mean to say that our entire life time is a result of our reaction to a given situation and our dealing with the result of our reaction ?

either way i do not quite agree. our choices are infinite and so are the possible situation which could result from those choices. the fact that a choice needs to be made does not assure that the same choice would be made each time if you were to roll back the clock 15 seconds at infinitum. i would argue that no difference exists from one choice to the next , i.e. no definitively right or wrong choice. each choice will have a different effect and produce a different set of other choices.the choices we make are affected by our moods , needs, wants and desires. are we emotionally invested in the choice to be made ? are we apathetic to the out- come and therefor to the choice itself ?

if i have a mustard sandwich and nothing unusual occurs as a direct result of the mustard sandwich...then i can not see how it could ever comeback to haunt me in twenty years , having lead , chain-reaction-style, to as eries of choices that ended up destroying me as a result of one bad choice about food.

it seems to me that you are saying the choices count but for that to be correct then EVERY choice would have to weigh as heavilly as the next.
every choice would be a choice between life and death. i expect we would all be dead by the age of three, the age where we are less reactionary and more autonamous.

0n0w1c · 08-12-2002, 08:39 PM

slowdown a bit... you covered a lot of ground in a hurry.

lets get some common ground and go from there.
determinsm, put another way...
say i toss you a ball from 10 feet away. i am sure you agree the ball will follow a very deterimined course. it will follow a path dictated by the velocity, angle, friction, air currents, etc. your brain is able to do some pretty good calculas to "predict" the fight of the ball, because you know things to be deterministic. if not, the events in the universe would then have "unpredictable" results. the ball might stop in mid-flight and then accelerate upwards. i would say the universes future is "predictable" not "predetermined". the further into the future, the less predictable because the amount of information needed. to show this, lets go back to the ball i tossed... you caught it, (good catch).
now, if i ask you where the ball will be in 1/1000 sec from now, you could be pretty sure it will still be in your hand. if i ask where it will be in 30 min, you will have less accuracy... but you could start asking for information, like... if you had to toss it back? if so, would i return it? if not, will i still be around in 30 min? etc.
if you could ask all the questions required and received the answers, you could predict where the ball would be.

does that help? maybe not... but i hope so.

no deities, souls or spirits are involved.

yes, we have choices, the option we take is determined by our experiences, knowledge and reasoning.

could predetermination be possible... if we find time travel into the future is possible. i currently do not hold that this is true. i have insuffcient knowledge of time travel. if this is proven, then we can ask if predetermination applys.

how could the entire universe be deterministic except for a brain? modern neuroscience seems to confirm the deterministic operation of the brain.
we see a deterministic universe, we see the cause and effect of every event, we just to not "see" our own brains doing the same... but it appears that they do.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]

Agent_O · 08-17-2002, 10:34 AM

The problem with using the trajectory example is that it relies on our ability to build models of real events in the universe. This example works well with a thrown ball, but what about modeling the actions of the people, animals, birds etc.? These things can all be said to have some form of will, whether you think of that will as free or not. (I prefer to think of "competing wills" rather than Free Will.)The problem with any kind of modeling is that to do it you have to leave out important factors.

Take your baseball example, for instance. Not only would you have to use some calculus to figure out the trajectory of a sphere with a certain mass and velocity, but you'd have to model the behavior of the air patterns at that particular time, the turbulence patterns of the air flowing over the ball, the possibility of chance collisions in mid-air, among other things. Already the level of complexity required is rather large and unweildy. Of course the basic parabolic curve is good enough for an estimate, but an estimate is not enough when we are talking about hard determinism.

In the much more general case (modeling the universe) there are rather more factors involved, like the ability to model the human mind, and predict the decisions it will make. Even if we could predict with certainty what decisions a brain will make in the future, we have to have a means to observe them, and then another model to take into account the changes that would occur because of those observations (Heisenberg's uncertainty applies to psychology as well as quantum physics).

The accuracy of a model increases as its complexity approaches the complexity of the system being modeled. The only perfect model of a system is the system itself, or a complete replica. In terms of a universe, the only perfectly accurate model of the universe would be another universe constructed to specification by some agency outside of either system. Because we are in the system, we are thus not capable of creating a perfect model of the universe, not capable of perfectly predicting the future action of that universe.

08-07-2002, 10:41 PM	#21
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Mu... I would say that if it appear random, we have a good reason to assume that it is random. There is no point in saying that a system exist, when no system is present to us. [ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

08-08-2002, 07:06 PM	#22
Agent_O New Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New Liskeard, Ontario, Canada Posts: 2	Here are a couple of thoughts. First I wanted to point out an interesting side note to the QM debate. It was stated quite a few messages ago that quantum effects are limited wholly to the very small world. This isn't the case. Though the two-slit experiment hasn't been done in the macroscopic world, other quantum effects have been so observed. A superconducting cylinder under special conditions will have at least some of the properties of a quantum particle even if the cylinder is a metre long. A rotating vat of super-cooled helium will experience increases in angular momentum in states, not as a function of acceleration. If quantum effects can occur in the macroscopic world, they may also occur in the microscopic world (namely in the neurons of the brain). This idea was posed a while back by the philospher Penrose, and is not really so far-fetched as you think. The implications this may have for determinism, and incidentally for the role of the observer in observed phenomenon are not entirely relevant here, but certainly should give some food for thought. As to determinism itself, really I'm glad someone finally got some rigour back into the definition. The classic test for hard determinism is the "calculation" test, which was already mentioned here. To summarize quickly: If one were completely aware of the entire state of the universe at any given question, one could predict the future of the universe precisely. The first problem with this is the one everybody takes for granted: How can anything or one within the system of a universe actually acquire this knowledge? The answer to this of course is that it's impossible. Next, we say "well pretend there's some God who is outside of the universe, who can look into that universe, collect the data and run a program." Nobody here would seriously argue that this is actually the case, but it makes an interesting thought experiment. Except that we are talking about the universe here and what's inside of it. To say that some entity could determine our universe is meaningless, and thus for us to talk about our universe being determinant is also meaningless. Anyone with the brain-power can contemplate his navel, scratch her head, frown and say "You know, I think the universe is determinant, here's why..." But you can't test it, you can't experiment with it, you can't really even conceive of it, so it doesn't have a substantive meaning. It's metaphysics. Okay, enough ranting. [ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Agent_O ]</p>

08-12-2002, 08:39 PM	#27
0n0w1c Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: usa Posts: 68	slowdown a bit... you covered a lot of ground in a hurry. lets get some common ground and go from there. determinsm, put another way... say i toss you a ball from 10 feet away. i am sure you agree the ball will follow a very deterimined course. it will follow a path dictated by the velocity, angle, friction, air currents, etc. your brain is able to do some pretty good calculas to "predict" the fight of the ball, because you know things to be deterministic. if not, the events in the universe would then have "unpredictable" results. the ball might stop in mid-flight and then accelerate upwards. i would say the universes future is "predictable" not "predetermined". the further into the future, the less predictable because the amount of information needed. to show this, lets go back to the ball i tossed... you caught it, (good catch). now, if i ask you where the ball will be in 1/1000 sec from now, you could be pretty sure it will still be in your hand. if i ask where it will be in 30 min, you will have less accuracy... but you could start asking for information, like... if you had to toss it back? if so, would i return it? if not, will i still be around in 30 min? etc. if you could ask all the questions required and received the answers, you could predict where the ball would be. does that help? maybe not... but i hope so. no deities, souls or spirits are involved. yes, we have choices, the option we take is determined by our experiences, knowledge and reasoning. could predetermination be possible... if we find time travel into the future is possible. i currently do not hold that this is true. i have insuffcient knowledge of time travel. if this is proven, then we can ask if predetermination applys. how could the entire universe be deterministic except for a brain? modern neuroscience seems to confirm the deterministic operation of the brain. we see a deterministic universe, we see the cause and effect of every event, we just to not "see" our own brains doing the same... but it appears that they do. [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2002, 10:23 AM	#24
popeontheropes Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: a rutt Posts: 24	Ah, how virulent the determinism bug is! I came to the same understanding as you when I first embarked on these ideas, but nevertheless they are wrong. "the observation of the system is one of the determining principles." Yes indeed, but now we are speaking of two separate issues. Claim One: By observing a system we change the system. By the human mind seeing the system, the system changes. Claim Two: By observing a system we change the system. By making the system observable by the human mind we must use microscopes etc., and it is the microscopes that really change the system (not the human mind in some mysterious way). I mentioned this issue in my last post just because it seems to be a popular confusion. Way too many eastern mystic/quantum physics books have been based around the absurd "claim one" above. However, this does not have anything to do with determinism. Both claims are deterministic (or can be). how does the human mind function ? it functions as a physical process of synaptic firings drawing on stored chemical information and constant creation and reordering of new and stored chemical information . it is a physical process. with that in mind , it is not ' absurd' to say that the observation could have an affect on the observed. we are after all speaking of an electron...one single electron. what i mean is that if you exist as a phisical being on this planet then you are , in some way, "in contact" with every thing else on this planet and ultimately in the univers. you could follow a chain of air molecules to a tree and a chain of it's molecules to the bird flying around a mile up in the sky and a chain of it's molecules to the air on the other side of it (relative to the tree's position and yours) and continue to follow that chain all the way to the surface of the moon. now, i am not saying that you can wave your hand and rais a dust cloud on the surface of the moon...however , engaging in thought in the close proximity of the electron that will pass through one of two doors could affect it's progress and trajectory towards one door or the other . and if the electron were absolutlyu shielded from all possible interference it would go straight ahead in to the wall between the two doors , assuming it came out of the chamber dead straight . the electron is inert and therefore has no abillity to chose it's path. where it goes is absolutly determined by what it encounters along the way and the manner in which it interacts with whatever it encountered. magnetism can be used to steer the electron. all materials have some magnetic properties. this includes humans but our electromagnetism fluctuates depending on how much activity there is within our physical system...i.e. excitement will cause more , calm will produce less. Here is our issue: Claim A: An isolated* particle will move with a path not strictly determined by any causes. absolute isolation will allow the particle to move in a straight line . so,then, the particles trajectory will determine it's path Claim B: An isolated* particle will move with a path strictly determined by preceding causes, but knowledge of these causes is beyond our research abilities. true *I say "isolated" particle because that is the only time these non-deterministic effects occur. on the issue of free will, we are constantly confronted with choice. with out freewill choices would be impossible to make or simply not exist .it would all be very mechanical and predictable. life is anything but predictable and i certainly don't believe that my actions are all predetermined and that i function as some sort of robot ,doing what i do in order to setup the situation in which someone else can do whathey need to do ...like some elaborate game of "mouse trap" . i do as i wish. if iwanted hunt someone down and kill them ..i could. if i want to go to the store and buy a twinlie , i can. if i want to strap myself to the space shuttle and ride it to my death in oputer space , it is all my choice. I am leaving room here for the intangible existance of the soul, or spirit or consciousness. from the time you become aware of your self and your thoughts and feelings.. you experience thoughts and feelings that exist in stark contrast to what you have been taught. certain things just don't seem right or seem completely right to the extent that there is effectively, no other choice, even though the choices are ,indeed ,infinite. with out freewill , what is the point?

08-12-2002, 03:33 PM	#26
popeontheropes Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: a rutt Posts: 24	i see what you are trying to say, however, i do not ,quite , understand your premiss.. are you saying that everything i do is predetermined by some sort of cosmic code ? *code = programming** because then you really are stepping out on the limb of destiny and the existance of a higher power that is in control of all of our existances. or do you mean to say that our entire life time is a result of our reaction to a given situation and our dealing with the result of our reaction ? either way i do not quite agree. our choices are infinite and so are the possible situation which could result from those choices. the fact that a choice needs to be made does not assure that the same choice would be made each time if you were to roll back the clock 15 seconds at infinitum. i would argue that no difference exists from one choice to the next , i.e. no definitively right or wrong choice. each choice will have a different effect and produce a different set of other choices.the choices we make are affected by our moods , needs, wants and desires. are we emotionally invested in the choice to be made ? are we apathetic to the out- come and therefor to the choice itself ? if i have a mustard sandwich and nothing unusual occurs as a direct result of the mustard sandwich...then i can not see how it could ever comeback to haunt me in twenty years , having lead , chain-reaction-style, to as eries of choices that ended up destroying me as a result of one bad choice about food. it seems to me that you are saying the choices count but for that to be correct then EVERY choice would have to weigh as heavilly as the next. every choice would be a choice between life and death. i expect we would all be dead by the age of three, the age where we are less reactionary and more autonamous.

08-17-2002, 10:34 AM	#28
Agent_O New Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New Liskeard, Ontario, Canada Posts: 2	The problem with using the trajectory example is that it relies on our ability to build models of real events in the universe. This example works well with a thrown ball, but what about modeling the actions of the people, animals, birds etc.? These things can all be said to have some form of will, whether you think of that will as free or not. (I prefer to think of "competing wills" rather than Free Will.)The problem with any kind of modeling is that to do it you have to leave out important factors. Take your baseball example, for instance. Not only would you have to use some calculus to figure out the trajectory of a sphere with a certain mass and velocity, but you'd have to model the behavior of the air patterns at that particular time, the turbulence patterns of the air flowing over the ball, the possibility of chance collisions in mid-air, among other things. Already the level of complexity required is rather large and unweildy. Of course the basic parabolic curve is good enough for an estimate, but an estimate is not enough when we are talking about hard determinism. In the much more general case (modeling the universe) there are rather more factors involved, like the ability to model the human mind, and predict the decisions it will make. Even if we could predict with certainty what decisions a brain will make in the future, we have to have a means to observe them, and then another model to take into account the changes that would occur because of those observations (Heisenberg's uncertainty applies to psychology as well as quantum physics). The accuracy of a model increases as its complexity approaches the complexity of the system being modeled. The only perfect model of a system is the system itself, or a complete replica. In terms of a universe, the only perfectly accurate model of the universe would be another universe constructed to specification by some agency outside of either system. Because we are in the system, we are thus not capable of creating a perfect model of the universe, not capable of perfectly predicting the future action of that universe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.