A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Oh really? Show me where I'm wrong in regard to this term and how the state of indeterminism supports free will, which libertarians are trying to use to deny that our universe is fully deterministic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

SO that is it? "If you read it, you will be convinced. If this does not happen, you did not do it right: all who read the book the right way see in see in themselves that it is correct"

That is simple circular reasoning. Is there no reason to believe it is true other than a vague sense that the book is right, which could, after all, just be caused by a desire for the book to be right? You know, wishful thinking and confirmation bias and so on?

This has nothing to do with the desire for the book to be right. Each individual must be able to put him or herself in the scenario that is being described to determine whether he could hurt people [with a first blow] when he also knows he will no longer be blamed or punished. If he says he could, he's lying, or he is unable to imagine a situation where hurting someone under these conditions would be impossible to contemplate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Will the person in this discussion raise his hand who thinks that quantum physics is a necessary condition for free will?

If nobody does, then why the fuzz?

GdB (lowering his hand)

Certain interpretations in quantum physics try to convince us that because there is no identifiable causal mechanism in how a wave functions, that the wave functions freely.

[Vivisectus]

This has nothing to do with the desire for the book to be right. Each individual must be able to put him or herself in the scenario that is being described to determine whether he could hurt people under these changed conditions. If he says he could, he's lying, or he is unable to actually put himself in this imaginary situation.

All evil is caused by the color blue. Just imagine what it would be like if there was nu blue! You could never do anything bad. If you say you could, you are lying, or you just did not imagine it right!

The only other way to prove this is to put a bunch of people in a room and never let them see blue.

Would you say there is enough here to convince you? What is the difference between this and what you propose?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All evil is caused by the color blue. Just imagine what it would be like if there was nu blue! You could never do anything bad. If you say you could, you are lying, or you just did not imagine it right!

The only other way to prove this is to put a bunch of people in a room and never let them see blue.

Would you say there is enough here to convince you? What is the difference between this and what you propose?

What garbage! Your analogies stink Vivisectus because they don't apply. You're grasping at straws.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Show me where I'm wrong in regard to this term and how the state of indeterminism supports free will, which libertarians are trying to use to deny that our universe is fully deterministic.

Because it's meaningless dribble. Like when you write this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... that because there is no identifiable causal mechanism in how a wave functions...

In which you have confused the mathematical noun 'function' with the layman verb 'function'.

You don't know what you're talking about. As usual. Indeterminism is not a 'state' and a wave does not 'function', freely () or otherwise.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What garbage! Your analogies stink Vivisectus because they don't apply. You're grasping at straws.

But you propose just that method for proving that what you believe is true!

It is not an analogy at all BTW.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Because it's meaningless dribble. Like when you write this:

In which you have confused the mathematical noun 'function' with the layman verb 'function'.

You don't know what you're talking about. As usual. Indeterminism is not a 'state' and a wave does not 'function', freely () or otherwise.

You know, I just realize don't even notice PG-isms like these anymore? I have almost completely internalized idiotic terms like "astute observations" as part of the vocabulary of peacegirl-speak, and I find I have somehow gotten completely used to gobbledygook, to the point I do not even notice it anymore.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Certain interpretations in quantum physics try to convince us that because there is no identifiable causal mechanism in how a wave functions, that the wave functions freely.

You're making shit up again and you have no idea what those words mean.

Why don't you explain what, if anything, you mean by

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the telescopes were picking up the Red Dot at a slightly different angle.

?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You're making shit up again and you have no idea what those words mean.

Oh really? Then tell me where I'm making shit up and then I can ask Trick Slattery if I got it wrong. He will correct me and give accurate feedback.

Originally Posted by But

Why don't you explain what, if anything, you mean by

?

I meant that the positioning of two telescopes millions of miles from each other can be enough to pick up a slight difference in the location of the dot on Jupiter.

[davidm]

So now peacegirl is teaching us about quantun mechanics.

We find out that it is the study of how a wave functions. And what about waves that don’t function well? Are they dysfunctional waves?

This is why this thread, after five and half years, remains strangely enthralling. It never disappoints with the freshness and audacity of its author’s utter stupidity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Because it's meaningless dribble. Like when you write this:

In which you have confused the mathematical noun 'function' with the layman verb 'function'.

You don't know what you're talking about. As usual. Indeterminism is not a 'state' and a wave does not 'function', freely () or otherwise.

Stop skirting the issue. If I don't know what I'm talking about, clear it up David. Show me how indeterminism proves that free will exists. Go ahead.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Then tell me where I'm making shit up and then I can ask Trick Slattery if I got it wrong. He will correct me and give accurate feedback.

Sure! Ask Slattery how a wave "functions" and whether, if it doesn't function well, it is a dysfunctional wave. See what he says!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So now peacegirl is teaching us about quantun mechanics.

No, Trick Slattery is. And he is quite impressive, unlike you.

Originally Posted by davidm

We find out that it is the study of how a wave functions. And what about waves that don’t function well? Are they dysfunctional waves?

This is why this thread, after five and half years, remains strangely enthralling. It never disappoints with the freshness and audacity of its author’s utter stupidity.

You don't have an answer so you cover up your ignorance by laughing. That is the way of cowards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Sure! Ask Slattery how a wave "functions" and whether, if it doesn't function well, it is a dysfunctional wave. See what he says!

When I have a chance to talk to him, I will ask him. You are such an arrogant fool. Let me clue you in: your pea sized brain does not hold the wisdom of God.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Sure! Ask Slattery how a wave "functions" and whether, if it doesn't function well, it is a dysfunctional wave. See what he says!

Who said anything about a dysfunctional wave? What are you lying about now?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have an answer so you make fun. That is the way of cowards.

Oh, Spacemonkey? I think peacegirl is finally ready to answer that list of questions you have posted about 4,250 times and which peacegirl has refused to answer 4,250 times. After all, she wouldn't want to be thought a coward, now would she?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I have a chance to talk to him, I will ask him.

Yes, by all means, ask him how a wave "functions" and let us know his response.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't assure expertise, but it does show he took the time and effort to write on a subject of great importance, whether YOU think so or not.

Thanks for the clarification. So the fact that this guy wrote a book shows that he took the time and effort to write on a subject of importance, whether YOU think so or not.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will check your refutation to see where you fall off the wagon. My analysis is based on Trick's very clear article as to why quantum physics does not save free will or indeterminism. How's that?

That's not analysis, though; that's you accepting what Mr. Slattery wrote at face value because you think it accords with what you already believe.

Whether you want to admit it or not, davidm makes a good point. Why should anyone pay any mind to anything you have to say on the interplay between quantum mechanics and determinism when you haven't demonstrated even the most basic level of knowledge or competence regarding quantum mechanics? I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take anything I say on the topic seriously since I have no education, training, experience or specialized knowledge in the subject matter.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Certain interpretations in quantum physics try to convince us that because there is no identifiable causal mechanism in how a wave functions, that the wave functions freely.

No body here, in this forum. Why discuss a topic with people who don't take that stance?

Others have already commented on your free waving function. Oh, no, your free functioning wave. Whatever. Why don't you just say that you do not understand QM? You don't have to if you are discussing with compatibilists, because they think that we need determinism to be free. On very good grounds...

[davidm]

Peacegirl, here is a summary of a few key concepts in QM, just to get you up to speed so you can discuss the subject sensibly. You’re welcome!

Eigenstates These are very important in QM. They refer to a smattering of small, failed nation-states scattered across the Balkans. These states fail indeterministically; i.e., their failure cannot be predicted with certainty. “Eignen” is derived from “egads! that nation-state really sucks!” When Eigenstates come into being they are said to have eigenvalues, usually pretty sucky values that explain their failure in the first place.

Wave function This refers to the function of waves off the coast of the Balkan eigenstates; i.e, to carry water along in a wave-like fashion.

Wave function collapse This happens when the waves collapse along coastal cities of the shitty eigenstates. Massive flooding and death ensue. When the wave function collapses, the wave is said to be in a condition of wave dysfunction.

I hope you find this helpful, and I encourage you to run it by Slattery so that he can verify what I say is true.

[Stephen Maturin]

Judge Eva Braun of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit approves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, Spacemonkey? I think peacegirl is finally ready to answer that list of questions you have posted about 4,250 times and which peacegirl has refused to answer 4,250 times. After all, she wouldn't want to be thought a coward, now would she?

I answered that question already. He doesn't like the answer so he repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and REPEATS!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's not analysis, though; that's you accepting what Mr. Slattery wrote at face value because you think it accords with what you already believe.

Whether you want to admit it or not, davidm makes a good point. Why should anyone pay any mind to anything you have to say on the interplay between quantum mechanics and determinism when you haven't demonstrated even the most basic level of knowledge or competence regarding quantum mechanics? I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take anything I say on the topic seriously since I have no education, training, experience or specialized knowledge in the subject matter.

I don't think you have the education, training, experience or specialize knowledge in the subject matter either, so you have no room to talk.

“Realist” Quantum Probability Cannot Grant Free Will

Warning, this article will assume some education on quantum mechanics. In fact it’s specifically for people who claim that quantum probability is both real and something that can help with a notion of “free will”. I expect those people to be familiar with some things, for example, the distinction between quantum mechanics and interpretations of quantum mechanics, what a wave function is, collapse of the wave function vs decoherence, and the like. If you aren’t at least somewhat familiar you can still read this, but be forewarned that many of the terms will not be unpacked in this article, as that would bloat it.

In this article I’m going to eventually disregard the logical incoherence of probability being “real” (or in philosophical terms “ontic”) and pretend that there is this magical type of event that is neither caused nor uncaused (in any appropriate conception of being uncaused)….but rather the event itself is, in actuality, probabilistic. A special third option (probabilistic) between two dichotomous events that are in opposition to each other (caused/uncaused).

cont. at: No Free Will Blog