excreationist

Peter Soderqvist:
I see MWI as involving a kind of tree starting with the big bang at the bottom of the trunk and its height represents time. When histories diverge, there are branches. The interference in the double slit experiment could be due corresponding parts of nearby interferring with each other. Decoherence could involve those branches of alternate histories growing away from each other so they no longer interfere with each other. So decoherence could just be an absence of interference between nearby alternate histories. This is similar to how particles can go backwards and forwards in time up to 1 planck time unit (that is kind of involving interference between different times (vertical) rather than at parallel times (horizontal on a tree))
BTW, as far as MWI goes, I think quantum computers are a good piece of evidence.
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...sp?id=22994400

Peter Soderqvist

TO PRIMAL

Soderqvist1: We already know how something random can interact with something nonrandom from experience in biology; it is the ordinary Darwinian description about random mutation, and nonrandom natural selection! Mutations are random in the sense that we cannot say when it happens, nor can we say if it "will" improve adaptive complexity or not! Most of these mutations are bad because of its non-directional nature, but nonrandom natural selection is a waste and regard mechanism, which removes the unfit mutants, and let the fit mutated gene propagate! A mutation is a quantum jump in the gene!

I don't think there is any dispute between us! For instance, a signed contract is based on the participants "free will" to sign the contract, because it will have no juridical validity if is signed under pressure or threat! If "Bob" is threaten to sign the contract and he do so by an act of volition, in order to remove the threat, it is because his mind has casual power to do so, because if the threat can act upon his mind, his mind can react to the threat too, by signing the contract according to Newton's third law of motion which states that; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction! If we assume that his mind has no casual power, the threat with punches has no power to impinge on his mind either, and we have no juridical means to decide if the contact was signed under pressure, or done by his own volition!

excreationist

spacer1:
Yeah... and neural networks (like the one in our brain) are very good at recognising patterns.

Hawking's later reply to this was "God not only plays dice. He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."
More info
People normally would assume that Einstein was simply being stubborn... his scientific objections to quantum physics weren't very good... it seems that his main motivation was philosophical. (Or at least it is according to that quote)

We have a power source to do things like keep our brain running - the cells use physical energy. I think our brain can use up to 30-50+% of the energy we use sometimes. (Something quite high like that) We also need internal power to power muscles so that our brain can interact with the world.
Earlier you said "We can roll a rock down a hill, but the rock doesn't show signs of trying not to break, nor apparently does it care if it does break."
One of the reasons why this is so is because it doesn't have a power source. A power source is needed for the rock to resist the roll (such as wind-up power like a clock, or an internal combustion engine, etc) and it is also needed to power an information processing system that would realise that it is rolling and attempt to figure out what to do in order to avoid it colliding with something hard (breaking). A power source is a necessary thing that an intelligent system would need to have - which a rock doesn't - which explains its unintelligent behaviour. A power source isn't the only necessary component though.

Survival pressures made the functional structures of things (like animals' brains) evolve in order to gain a survival advantage. The ones that didn't function properly or well enough didn't pass their genes on. "Operate that way" involves the function of things. e.g. when you look at a heart, you can see it is pumping blood throughout the body. In the case of "set up", I'm talking about a thermostat, which is obviously man-made.

As far as the desire to survive goes, this involves some survival-related pleasures (things to seek/repeat) and pains (things to avoid). Survival related pleasures include the pleasure of sucking (to motivate babies to breastfeed), tasting sweet foods (for energy), tasting fatty foods (for energy), tasting salty foods (for salts, which we need some of), sex (to keep the species going), "newness" (to motivate exploration and discovery), "connectedness/coherence" (to motivate understanding things, forming social bonds, etc) and muscle relaxation (so that the body can recover). Pains/discomforts include bad tastes and smells (for health/nutritional reasons), excessive heat or coldness (to prevent burning or freezing), touch-type pain (too much pressure on the skin? - to prevent/discourage cuts, and faeces and urine building up, etc), etc.
Of course, we don't respond to these goal-formulating considerations in simple ways. Babies do though. But over the course of months and years, we quickly learn how to respond to pleasures and pains (and also expected pleasures and pains) in very intelligent ways. When we are learning how to do this, we are discovering patterns in how the world works and we use that to predict the future state of our environment based on hypothetical actions. Then we can select the course of action that seems most appealing.

See my previous paragraphs. We have fundamental desires (which I partially listed a bit earlier) aka "drives" but we learn to use them to formulate subgoals in very sophisticated ways.

Yes.

We have a sense of balance and as a toddler we learnt that it isn't much fun falling against a hard floor - so we resist.
BTW, the Segway uses tilt sensors, electronics and electric motors to keep itself balanced. So if it is turned on, it would resist you pushing it over. It "created its own force" (though not "willfully"). One of the main reasons this was possible is because it has a power supply. We also have a power supply - oxygen, fats, and sugars, etc. We don't just "create our own force" with magic.

I think our brains are just "wired" that way... that is the resultant function of a properly "trained", properly functioning brain (not a dead one)... like how the resultant function of a properly function heart (not a dead one) is that blood is being pumped. We begin as a little fertilized egg first of course and gradually the "plan" encoded in our DNA gives rise to a baby. And this baby is normally raised by intelligent parents and so the baby learns to become very intelligent (babies are usually very proactive learners). The DNA came from previous humans who in turned evolved from other people and ultimately we came from some single-celled organism billions of years ago, and before that, maybe some kind of simpler self-replicating molecule or larger structure. So I think it boils down to "mindless chemicals".

Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: These sentences appear incorrect to me ”The interference in the double slit experiment could be due corresponding parts of nearby interfering with each other. Decoherence could involve those branches of alternate histories growing away from each other so they no longer interfere with each other. So decoherence could just be an absence of interference between nearby alternate histories.”

It is only the nearby histories, which interact with each other, all these, which has various double slit experiments in it! All the rest of histories without double slit experiments have nothing to do with it, because decoherence happens because the measurement disturb the quantum system, and so decoherence.
According to Richard Feynman, the electron “sniffing out” all possible ways the single electron can travel between the electron gun and its target, and these possible ways are close to infinitely many! Either there is close to infinitely many real electrons there, which interact with each other, and you have to describe how they can decoherence instantly, which appears to me as not compatible MWI!

That they are many is confirmed by your quote from David Deutch "One day, a quantum computer will be built which does more simultaneous calculations than there are particles in the Universe," says Deutsch. "Since the Universe as we see it lacks the computational resources to do the calculations, where are they being done?" It can only be in other universes, he says. "Quantum computers share information with huge numbers of versions of themselves throughout the multiverse."

Or there is close to infinitely many “ghostly ones” there, which interact only mathematically with each other, and collapses into one real electron, when measured, which is in accord with the wave equation!

I have read David Deutch book, The Fabric of Reality!

excreationist

Peter Soderqvist:
Hi, I haven't read David Deutch's book and in fact hardly know anything about MWI. (But I think I know the basics - I've also read some stuff about Julian Barbour's Platonia which is related to MWI)

During the decoherence the branches could greatly distance themselves from each other, so that there is no more interference.

I think it would be more a case of alternate histories being created exponentially, when in each one, the electron moves a bit (generally towards the target, due to its momentum). The possible paths between the electron gun and the target would be the pasts of the alternate histories. I don't think the electron was "sniffing out" its target.

I don't know what MWI adherents usually believe as far as that goes but they would have answers to that.

Primal

The problem with this criticism is that when a Darwinian is saying "random" in reference to mutation, he or she is not necessarily speaking of an ontological randomness or lack of causality. They will not automatically say "if the same exact event played out under the same exact conditions will the same exact result happen?" and say "no." They are merely speaking of a blind or nonoperational process.

This is similiar to when a physicist speaks of matter turning into energy. Now if one were to see that and argue for "dualism" on that basis one would have made a serious error: in that the term matter when used by physicists is not the same as used by philosophers.
So pointing to matter-energy interactins as solutions for dualism would be very questionable.


This is because our language has evolved imperfectly, making the same word have multiple meanings, especially when used in a different context in different fields. For example consider the word "theory" when used by a layman and the word "theory" when used by a scientist.



I understand mutations are not predictable but remember: determinism is not predictability.

I can for example, shuffle a deck of cards in the dark and lay them out face first top to bottom, and you could not predict at any moment what cards I was laying out because you could not see them. Yet the whole process would be determined.


Ok I'd like to clear up a possible misconception right now: mainly that because I am a determinist I do not believe there is no morality, cognition or accountability. That to me would be like a non-vitalist saying that since life is made of matter or regular elements, organisms are not alive.

It is quite obvious we can make choices based on our cognition, how we reason, what we prefer, what action we commit too. It's just that such choices are determined.

Lets say the same man commits the same act when we somehow rewind and playback reality. I still hold the man responsible for his choices.

This is because, according to my moral beliefs, the man's action is intentional and it shows bad chatacter.

I mean if you define morality as "something arising from indeterministic free will" then yeah, ok there is no morality.


But I don't see morality that way, I see it as character and value judgement. Hence bad choices reflect bad character and a violation of values.

I also know I can make choices, because obviously my mind is not a passive apendage but an active causal factor. Saying I do not make a choice when I act, is like saying that when my heart pumps my blood, its not my "heart that's pumping" but "Newton's laws". They are just not mutually exclusive. Hence my choices do direct my actions, my mind directs my body, it's just that my mind is a determined entity: just like my heart in that sense.

And when we punish or reward (which is what responsibility is in the dictionary: determing punishment or reward) we punish and reward a mind. One who's actions were intentional.

In this event I find it funny that some determinists state we cannot blame a criminal for his or her actions but complains when people punish the criminal; for wasn't such punishment itself determined? In which case, can you blame those who punish?


I personally do not like the word "free will" though because it is so attached to indeterminism. I'm sure one can believe in a free will that is completely compatable with determinism and define it accordingly.

However I feel that would be like if scientists upon discovering there was no "vital fluid" that separated life from nonlife, simply decided to define "vital fluid" as metabolic activity. I just take issue with how the term is very misleading or easily misinterpreted.

Primal

Yes of course I think our thoughts are potent. It's rather obvious.

I still don't like the term free will though for the reasons given above and because it suggests the mind is not determined by initial conditions. I likewise think every organ in our body is potent: but they are still determined and effected by initial conditions.

spacer1

The problem I have with the MWI is that the number of universes must tend to infinity, if you take into account every slight (and large) variation of the universe we inhabit, which make up these "other" universes. Imagine the number of universes there need to be for your head to be rotated one degree in any direction from where it is now, and then apply that to every other object. What about a universe with no energy? What about a universe where the earth is 1000 miles closer to the sun? A universe which is unaffected by other universes?

Basically, if the number of universes tends to infinity, then every outcome has the same likelihood of occurring, and we have pure randomness.

Perhaps I'm missing something here?

tronvillain

I would have to say that is a pretty poor description of the implications of determinism, since as far as I can tell, the truth of determinism has not effect on any type of free will worth wanting. Yes, in such a universe every movement and thought in my life was determined (though not planned out) at the moment of the big bang, but that does not imply that I do not have control over the events of my life. My "destiny" unfolds because of the choices I make, not in spite of them, and that is all the free will I require or could hope for (as if I would want my choices to be random).

spacer1

tronvillain,