Free Will, Where Does It Come From? - Page 6

Rogan Josh · February 3, 2004, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

If there are no rules, the universe is STILL probabilistic - just everything has an equal chance of happening.

Actually, come to think of it, the universe is probabilistic no matter what - "deterministic" is just a subset where all of the probabilities are either 0 or 1.

No its not - the issue is whether or not the probabilities are fixed.

Solly · February 3, 2004, 19:42

Quote:

If there are no rules, the universe is STILL probabilistic - just everything has an equal chance of happening.

I disagree with this but I'm too tired to find a good explanation why.

There are other ways of existing than deterministically or probabilistically IMO.

Kuciwalker · February 3, 2004, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

No its not - the issue is whether or not the probabilities are fixed.

Explain how the probabilities being fixed at equal is any different statistically from the probabilities being unfixed.

Rogan Josh · February 3, 2004, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Explain how the probabilities being fixed at equal is any different statistically from the probabilities being unfixed.

Imagine you had 100,000 experiments all set to the same initial conditions. If the probability of some event happening were say 10% then it would happen in 10,000 (roughly) of the experiments - this is a prediction which can be tested. If the percentage is not fixed then you cannot predict the number, and it may be 1 or 99999.

Kuciwalker · February 3, 2004, 20:22

I know that - however, if the probability is "unfixed", then each event would have an equal probability of happening (essentially zero, since there would be an infinite number of potential subsequent events, there being no rules).

DAVOUT · February 4, 2004, 03:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue

By definition, nothing lies outside the universe, right..?

I am inclined to think that we cannot eliminate the hypothesis that there is an outside. The fundamental laws of this universe are governing everything, but that does not mean that another set of fundamental laws cannot be conceived; and this set could only be operated outside.

Solly · February 4, 2004, 07:28

"I am inclined to think that we cannot eliminate the hypothesis that there is an outside. The fundamental laws of this universe are governing everything, but that does not mean that another set of fundamental laws cannot be conceived; and this set could only be operated outside."

I'm sorry, but that is the old "B creates the laws for C", "A creates the laws for B" etc - what governs what happens in the law-setting part of the "universe?

DAVOUT · February 4, 2004, 09:54

Is it not presumptuous to think that we are in the middle of a universe encompassing the totallity of what exists ? We could as well be located in a remote part of a multiverse, and this would not change what we are observing. So, we cannot exclude it.

And for life to enjoy free will could only be conceived through access to the outside.

Solly · February 4, 2004, 11:01

Quote:

Is it not presumptuous to think that we are in the middle of a universe encompassing the totallity of what exists ?

It is an assumption, yes.

Do you think there are other universes out there? Any evidence for this?

Whaleboy · February 4, 2004, 11:02

Quote:

Do you think there are other universes out there? Any evidence for this?

Sum over histories, plus the fluctuations in our own, not to mention the fact that there is no logical barrier to their existence. In cosmology, thats as good as QED

.

DAVOUT · February 4, 2004, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue

Do you think there are other universes out there? Any evidence for this?

I like the idea that a population of universes evolves over time throught accidental modification of their sets of fundamentals laws. This would make our special set plausible.

Rogan Josh · February 5, 2004, 08:25

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I know that - however, if the probability is "unfixed", then each event would have an equal probability of happening.

Not true. There would be no defined probability at all. One could not even say a posteriori what the probability was because a sample of one event is not statistically safe. Things would just happen with no discerable pattern at all (looking to the observer very much like an extremely chaotic observer).

Dr Strangelove · February 5, 2004, 09:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Exactly!

Quatum machanics does still apply. QM (or rather Quantum Field Theory, which is QM's generalisation) applies at all energy scales, even macroscopic ones. In principle one should be able to use QM to describe the dynamics of everyday objects - it is just that the maths of the problem would be horrendously difficult - but it is possible in principle.

Yes, but for all intents and purposes we can ignore quantum mechanics when considering the biological and chemical principles govrening brain function.

Solly · February 5, 2004, 09:56

Quote:

Yes, but for all intents and purposes we can ignore quantum mechanics when considering the biological and chemical principles govrening brain function.

"...neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches. If we look inside neurons and other cells, we see highly ordered networks (the "cytoskeleton") comprised of microtubules and other filamentous structures which organize cellular activities.. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin arranged in hexagonal lattices comprising the cylinder wall. Cooperative interactions among tubulin subunits within microtubules have been suggested to process information, as in molecular scale "cellular automata". As the states of tubulin are controlled by quantum mechanical internal forces (van der Waals London forces), they may exist in quantum superposition of multiple states ("quantum bits, or "qubits"), and microtubules may be seen as quantum computers involved in cellular organization."

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu...tro/intro.html

Solly · February 5, 2004, 14:17

bump for Dr S.

Dr Strangelove · February 5, 2004, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue

"...neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches. If we look inside neurons and other cells, we see highly ordered networks (the "cytoskeleton") comprised of microtubules and other filamentous structures which organize cellular activities.. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin arranged in hexagonal lattices comprising the cylinder wall. Cooperative interactions among tubulin subunits within microtubules have been suggested to process information, as in molecular scale "cellular automata". As the states of tubulin are controlled by quantum mechanical internal forces (van der Waals London forces), they may exist in quantum superposition of multiple states ("quantum bits, or "qubits"), and microtubules may be seen as quantum computers involved in cellular organization."

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu...tro/intro.html

I'm not impressed. He's made no attempt to relate the biochemistry of microtubules to the electrical reactivity of the neuron, electrical activity being the ultimate conductive mechanism of the neuron. The fact that microtubules exist and that they're in neurons doesn't mean that they have form some "cellular automata". What is it that these microtubules do that has an effect on the electrical activity of the nerve cell? That is the real question. Next you need some proof that the hypothesis has some connection with reality, i.e., empirical and experimental data. Furthermore I'm not sure that it's correct to refer to van der Waals forces as a quantum mechanism. Rogan Josh could probably help here.