|
|
06-10-2016, 01:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Being in a state of indeterminism...
|
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.
|
06-10-2016, 01:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Epistemology tells us that there are different ways to truth. The problem here is that you are looking for empirical results. This law cannot be tested this way unless they simulated the new world on a smaller scale. You refuse to look at his observations because you are skeptical. I get that, but it's gone too far and it has become counter-productive. I will say, once again, that empirical confirmation can only come when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment. It's like knowing the correct formula on a blackboard, but it cannot be seen until it is applied in real life.
|
Not at all: the evidence could be logical as well. Or something else. But right now it is nothing.
Ah, but then in the end it becomes a simple appeal: please just take my word for it, it really works that way.
It takes more than that to be convincing.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
That is what you claim. I already know that. What I am asking is: why should I think this is correct?
|
Stop thinking about the general application. It doesn't work that way. It only has to do with each individual and their conscience. When you read, you will be able to see whether, under the changed conditions, you could cheat anyone at all. Trust me, you could never, not even taking a dime away from someone if it does not belong to you.
|
I did read it, and I did not have some sort of convincing revelation at all. I see no reason to assume it would have that effect. I would be just as likely or unlikely to cheat, in my estimation.
So you think I could not. I think I would be the same as I am now.
How do we check who is correct?
|
You have not understood the actual proof (assuming that what he says about conscience is correct) by testing it on yourself. You have not done that Vivisectus. You are just surmising, is all. Of course that won't convince you.
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-10-2016 at 01:49 PM.
|
06-10-2016, 01:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
06-10-2016, 01:49 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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?
|
06-10-2016, 02:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
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?
|
What garbage! Your analogies stink Vivisectus because they don't apply. You're grasping at straws.
|
06-10-2016, 02:09 PM
|
|
Now in six dimensions!
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
|
06-10-2016, 02:11 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
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?
|
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.
|
06-10-2016, 02:30 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
06-10-2016, 02:32 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Maybe the telescopes were picking up the Red Dot at a slightly different angle.
|
?
|
06-10-2016, 04:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Why don't you explain what, if anything, you mean by
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Maybe the telescopes were picking up the Red Dot at a slightly different angle.
|
?
|
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.
|
06-10-2016, 04:39 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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.
|
06-10-2016, 04:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
06-10-2016, 04:43 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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!
|
06-10-2016, 04:44 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
So now peacegirl is teaching us about quantun mechanics.
|
No, Trick Slattery is. And he is quite impressive, unlike you.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-10-2016 at 08:35 PM.
|
06-10-2016, 04:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
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!
|
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.
|
06-10-2016, 04:51 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
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!
|
Who said anything about a dysfunctional wave? What are you lying about now?
|
06-10-2016, 04:58 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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?
|
06-10-2016, 05:00 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
06-10-2016, 05:28 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
You don't know anything about quantum mechanics! You are an idiot. You have no idea what Slattery is talking about -- you've no clue what terms like "wave function" or "wave function collapse" or "ontic probability" or "decoherence" mean -- no clue at all!
|
But he does David. He wrote a book on it.
|
So writing a book is an assurance of expertise in the book's subject matter?
|
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.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
06-10-2016, 05:59 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
06-10-2016, 06:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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...
|
06-10-2016, 06:56 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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.
|
06-10-2016, 08:05 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Judge Eva Braun of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit approves.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
06-10-2016, 08:36 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
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?
|
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!
|
06-10-2016, 08:41 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
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.
|
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
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 41 (0 members and 41 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 AM.
|
|
|
|