PotatoError

Sorry I understand that random behaviour at the plank scale has been observed. But what is the difference between this observation and an observation that the weather exhibits random behaviour?

"You have it the wrong way around. When a system is random, the only information you can obtain is probabilistic."

From this I can understand both you and Starboy are trying to tell me that "science can only predict quantum bahaviour using probabilities, therefore to science quantum behaviour is random".

My argument though is that science is treating quantum behaviour as random - not in anyway showing that it is.

I understand that science always represents the current truth but I don't think I am really going against it. I am not saying that quantum theory is made up at all.

Starboy

PotatoError, I feel like I am going in circles. We have already covered the topic of hidden variables, it involves testing Bell's inequality. As you have said, "It is not proof". I agree, it is not, but it is evidence. So if you are caught holding a smokin gun beside a man lying dead on the floor, it is not proof that you murdered the man, but it is supporting evidence. Providing supporting evidence for natural explanations is the most science can do as far as "proof" goes.

Starboy

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Oxymoron

Science is not doing anything of the kind. It is impossible in principle to get any other sort of information out of a quantum system other than statistical. There is no choice in this matter.

You really would do well to get a book on what QM says, and why it came about to say that. And the theory of statistics, while you're at it.

Kharakov

Oxymoron-

Why don't you go ahead and show how my statements about probability and shrodingers equation are wrong. I will enjoy it if you actually teach me something that I do not already know.

Kharakov

In that case, thank you. I still believe you are misguided in your statements.

PotatoError

"It is impossible in principle to get any other sort of information out of a quantum system other than statistical. There is no choice in this matter."

I am not arguing any of that! I agree with it totally. totally, completely, yes.

Where I differ with your view is that I don't think Quantum Mechanics is evidence against determinism.

A determined event will give the same outcome every time it is ran. The only way to re-run an event is to rewind time and press play.
Seeing as we can't do this I can't understand how you can say that there is any evidence against determinism.

Yes I will read up on Quantum Mechanics shortly (I am busy with something else this week), but I don't believe from what you have said that it is evidence against determinism.

You will probably ask "What the hell is evidence against determinism then??" - that's the problem, It's why "free will" vs "determinism" is a philosophical debate not a scientific one.

Liquidrage

QM is not evidence against determinism, unless you attach the ability to predict the future to determinism as many do.

Because of this red herring the en vouge word became causality.

Hard free will vs determinism is not just a philosophical question however. The scientific method can easily applied to hard free will.
Experiments have been done to discover when the conscious mind becomes aware of decisions compared to motor reactions for example.
Another scientific way of looking at this is how the mind makes decisions. Is the mind alone enough to produce free will or the illusion of free will? Any source of will is detectable. Even if it was a soul, the soul's interaction with the mind would be detectable.

John Page

I would like to offer the following train of thought as an alternative to the "what is random" and "what is determined/pre-determined" debate.

1. In order for something to be perceived, it must be distinguished from its surroundings.
2. In order for something to be distiguished from its surroundings, there must be one or more detectable differences between it and its surroundings.
3. We apprehend relationships between the differences we detect over time and, where they are found to be reliable relationships, they are cast in the "cause and effect" set of relationships.
4. From the above brief description of a cognitive model, a "thing" will appear random where a cause and effect relation has not been applied. Note: Calculating a random number seems a bit of a misnomer to me, if we are calculating it then the calculation has caused its numeric value.
5. Our world therefore appears deterministic, and this is an inevitable consequence of cognition.
6. Phenomena may appear to us as "uncaused" where the underlying relations to other phenomena are weak or undiscovered. However, as per item 1 above, I suggest Page's Causal Hypothesis that the phenomena must be distinguishable from its surroundings and this "fact of distinction" requires a cognitive cause.
7. The above may be applied to both material and abstract phenomena (because cognition/perception occurs through the processing of information).


In summary, everything in our minds is caused. Therefore, acts resulting from the activity of mind are caused. Ergo no free will.

As a side note, a "first cause" and infinite regress is unnecessary. It might at first appear so but once we understand that the manner of our cognition draws us to think so (dare I say instinctively) we can discard that assumption.

Cheers, John

PS I wrote this of my own free will.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Kharakov

Some physicists use the word random like theists use the word god- they fill in their knowledge gaps with "random did it!".

Starboy

Kharakov, if only it were so. You really should read about the history of QM. It is a theory that many still have trouble with to this very day, yet along with Electromagnetism, it is one of the most successful theories around. What the scientists have done is accepted it not because they liked it, but because that is what nature is telling them is the way the universe works. Many have tried and they have all failed, but believe me, if anyone did come up with a working completely deterministic explanation, they would switch in an instant. We don't get to tell nature what to do, we just have to explain it using nature.

Starboy