I thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply stated that it is impossible to know both the location and spin or an electron at any given point in time. You may know one, but not the other.

As a corollary to that, I thought it also said that 2 electrons can't occupy the same space at the same time, with the same spin.

That was a long time ago though and my physics certainly isn't what it used to be, but I'd venture to bet that the H. Uncertainty principle is completely irrelevant to discussing a coin flip (i.e. flipping a coin has nothing to do with quantum physics).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply stated that it is impossible to know both the location and spin or an electron at any given point in time. You may know one, but not the other. As a corollary to that, I thought it also said that 2 electrons can't occupy the same space at the same time, with the same spin. That was a long time ago though and my physics certainly isn't what it used to be, but I'd venture to bet that the H. Uncertainty principle is completely irrelevant to discussing a coin flip (i.e. flipping a coin has nothing to do with quantum physics).

Position and velocity, not location and spin. I explained this in the original post. A coin is not a single point - every particle in that coin has its own location and its own velocity, and to predict with 100% certainty how and where it will land, you'd have to know all the positions and all the velocities with 100% certainty - which you can't ever know.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply stated that it is impossible to know both the location and spin or an electron at any given point in time. You may know one, but not the other. As a corollary to that, I thought it also said that 2 electrons can't occupy the same space at the same time, with the same spin. That was a long time ago though and my physics certainly isn't what it used to be, but I'd venture to bet that the H. Uncertainty principle is completely irrelevant to discussing a coin flip (i.e. flipping a coin has nothing to do with quantum physics).

Well, I said that mostly as a joke because it is irrelevant on a macro-scale. But, if you truly want to be 100% accurate in your predictions, then HUP will get in the way.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I said that mostly as a joke because it is irrelevant on a macro-scale. But, if you truly want to be 100% accurate in your predictions, then HUP will get in the way.

I don't think it's completely irrelevant - it doesn't have much of an effect on a macro scale, but it restricts the accuracy of any predictions you can make.

Any uncertainty in an infinite set of variables is an infinite amount of uncertainty. If you want to get technical, our actions are neither chosen nor predetermined, because if we performed them even a nanosecond later, they would be slightly different - all we can do is influence the systems in and around us by changing the probabilities of various events.

I'm really against using any sort of scientific principles in this "free choice" argument - any qualified mathematician or scientist will tell you that the only certainty is randomness - pure determinism does not exist in nature. If you want to substitute randomness for choice, then we have to structure the systems we use based on what is most probable, and I think that's essentially how they are structured, unless poor politicians or lobbyists get in the way.

P.S. to Tito and Occrider.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut St. Andrew, the problem with your philosophy as that you're looking at the choice of an individual in hindsight. There is never any choice, never any randomness after something's already happened. Even though a person's actions may be the result of their environment and their brain, the action they take is completely unpredictable until after the fact. And I do mean truly unpredictable, because the set of variables governing an individual's behaviour is infinite. And that, I argue, is choice, simply defined a different way. If other people can't predict our actions in foresight, then in hindsight we made a choice.

In theory it is predictable. If we knew all the variables of ones brain, all the experiences, if we knew everything of this person, we could predict what he would choice in different situations. Of course that is (almost) impossible for us to know, so it is impossible for us to predict his choices. but this doesn't contradict my theory, fact remains that all those variables make our choices, yet i cannot see where the FREE choice is, there is a choice, yes, but there is no free choice.

quote:

The postmodernist philosophy of free choice is mostly a form of philosophical and intellectual masturbation that doesn't have much practical use. If "true" free choice is an unattainable ideal, then we have to redefine "choice" to reflect something that is a physical reality in order to form a coherent argument that has any practical use. The no-free-choice argument as a lead-in to the extreme left liberal laissez-faire philosophy is not very logical and has been debunked in the past. We can talk about it philosophically, but trying to apply it politically is basically a dead-end street.

We have a society that is built upon free choice, i mean that there is no such thing as free choice, why shouldn't you try to apply this in any way? Of course it's impossible to make everyone happy even though you know this, but you should think of this when you try to form a good society.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic It is interesting that you write "unique properties", as it is quite a vague definition. I assume that you do not mean the acts of the person, as these are not freely chosen by him (cf. your own argument). I furthermore assume that you do not mean physical appearence, voice etc., as these could be altered due to surgery or accidents, yet that thing we call a person would remain. So what do you mean?

I mean both the acts of the person and the physical appearance. Even though that you cannot affect them, that is an individual. An individual is (IMO) those unique properties, no one else has exactly the same, that is what make you unique (individual). There is no such thing as an individual that control himself.

quote:

Quite to the contrary I think that the existence of individuals/essences/souls are relevant to the latter part of Andrews argument. As I understand his reasoning, it goes something like this: We do not have free choice. Therefore, the "individual" is not really responsible for the choices he or she make - or alternatively, if we punish him, it will be because of his initial brain structure and the experiences he has had - both factors that "he" cannot help being subjected to. I don't know if I'm stepping out of bounds here, but it seems like he's advocating that the person/individual is more or less a slave to his brain and experiences: A helpless soul trapped in an automaton? If, by my argument, you accept that the line of reasoning provided for non-existence of free choice also eliminates the existence of a soul/individual, then his cause ceases to be.

you got it a person is only a slave to his own bran and experiences. i know, a lot of you people don't want it to be like that but that is the case, we are nothing more than we are, the only thing that can change us is our environment.

Don't ovverrat ever overrate mankind

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I was actually arguing with Andrew about this in another thread (which will never end). In my opinion, adopting such a philosophical believe is extremely dangerous. While we exclude personal responsibility and accountability for an individual since he supposedly does not have "free" choice, we also exclude that individual's ability to make choices. As you stated, there is no individual, only a helpless soul slave to a their brains and experiences. Therefore, according to this degree of thought, humans should NOT be extended the privelidge of choice since their choices in life are ALWAYS predetermined and unchangeable. Therefore, a superior system should be set in place (an all-knowing 1984 style of government or a super computer) to make choices for the individual since the individual will inevitably make the wrong choice. Or even going one step further, why not set up a eugenics program to eliminate the mass of humanity who are born with the propensity of gravitating to the wrong choices as a result of their brain chemistry? I argued that freedom and accountability go hand in hand ... either you grant the individual the benefit of the doubt that they possess "free" choice and invoke accountability on their part for the choices that they make, or you eliminate their freedom of choice.

No you doesn't have to take it to the extreme, a society must consist of what you call free choices, people would revolt sooner or later otherwise, a man is formed that way, he/she want to do as he wants. but what society could do is to try to make everyone want to do / think the society's way (ie through better environments, punishments/awards). It shouldn't be a totalitair society but still you should in a way try to form peoples minds. and we should take care of the ones that cannot handle our way of society.

quote:

At any rate I've learned one thing from this discussion ... there really IS a short jump to totalitariaism from the extremist positions of either ideaological sides

LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew In theory it is predictable. If we knew all the variables of ones brain, all the experiences, if we knew everything of this person, we could predict what he would choice in different situations. Of course that is (almost) impossible for us to know, so it is impossible for us to predict his choices. but this doesn't contradict my theory, fact remains that all those variables make our choices, yet i cannot see where the FREE choice is, there is a choice, yes, but there is no free choice.

That is direct polarization and almost as bad as creationists saying that since the brain is so complex and misunderstood that God must have created it. The fact of the matter, is that we DON'T know how the brain operates or how it facilitates consciousness and thought. Knowing variables of the brain does not predetermine a given choice. Although a given pattern of neuron bursts are indicative of a brain reaction, one cannot predict that experience y has x influence on neuron A resulting in stimulus of the cerebral cortex in location c resulting in choice d. Unless you have PROOF to back up your certainty ...

Despite this, the uncertainty principle still applies. The uncertainty principle states that there is randomness in EVERY particle and wave, which until observed, remains statistical in nature. Therefore, NOTHING can be predetermined. It cannot be predicted whether neurons will fire as a result of an electron influencing a transport protein which may/may not interact with a neurotransmitter causing a dendrite to fire which may ultimately influence decision.

quote:

We have a society that is built upon free choice, i mean that there is no such thing as free choice, why shouldn't you try to apply this in any way? Of course it's impossible to make everyone happy even though you know this, but you should think of this when you try to form a good society.

You still haven't addressed my criticism with this mentality. If there is no free choice, why not remove choice altogether?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew No you doesn't have to take it to the extreme, a society must consist of what you call free choices, people would revolt sooner or later otherwise, a man is formed that way, he/she want to do as he wants. but what society could do is to try to make everyone want to do / think the society's way (ie through better environments, punishments/awards). It shouldn't be a totalitair society but still you should in a way try to form peoples minds. and we should take care of the ones that cannot handle our way of society.

No! People WOULDN'T revolt! If your provide the proper environment and stimulus through the totalitarian state then they HAVE no choice remember!

Or better yet, since the poor are far more likely to be subjected to influenced choice, why do we not let the rich have free choice, and remove the option of choice from the poor. Some omnipotent power can then consistantly make the RIGHT choice for them. As their environment improves with them being FORCED to not be lazy, FORCED to study, they therefore gaining a higher standard of living and they will ultimately be better off. And as they are better off they can grow accustomed to the wisdom of the omnipotent choice maker and they can forever be without the right to choice from now on. Ah yes, the seeds of a perfect society are implanted in my mind as we speak

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew In theory it is predictable. If we knew all the variables of ones brain, all the experiences, if we knew everything of this person, we could predict what he would choice in different situations. Of course that is (almost) impossible for us to know, so it is impossible for us to predict his choices. but this doesn't contradict my theory, fact remains that all those variables make our choices, yet i cannot see where the FREE choice is, there is a choice, yes, but there is no free choice.

I know Occ already addressed this, but I have to take one more shot at this.

You're giving us an argument from ignorance here - you're basing your arguments on a flawed understanding of mathematical and physical theory. I don't mean to attack, but you really need to understand that, once again, you cannot know the exact state of an infinite set of variables. It is not "almost" impossible - it is really and truly impossible. You call it finite because you're looking just inside the human body/brain - but the body/brain is reacting to outside stimulus such as light and sound, so it is not a closed system in the scientific sense.

And, even if you could account for every variable in that infinite set (which you cannot), you still wouldn't have all the necessary data because of the HUP - to predict the behaviour of a particle, you need its position function and derivative (velocity), and you cannot calculate both. The HUP actually refers to a mathematical equation using a normalized Planck's constant - essentially, the statistical variance in the position and velocity functions have a constant product, so when you lower one, you must raise the other.

Andrew, you are wrong. You could never gather data on an infinite set, and even if you could, there would still be uncertainty within that data. Human behaviour as an open system, including the planet and its environment (i.e. not in a vacuum) is unpredictable, and not simply because we lack the ability to predict. It's a scientific impossibility.

Just wanted to clear that up.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

my sig says it all in 1 simple sentence

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

Excellent read. I always love some philosophy mixed with physics. Let me see If I got that right: Andrew argues for a trapped individual, a slave to genetic ans environment. Define "individual" ? Where does it come from? As soon has it has origins it's another mere result of action-reaction and loses it's "unique" nature. Connected to the other "unfree choices".

I didn't really get the relation between Andrew's trapped-soul-theory and the fact that nothing can be predetermined. Are you saying that if you subtract the 99.9999999999...% of known factors from the 100% certainity of any given act, you'll get the "tiny" piece of randomness, which is "our" free choice? What we, after all the outside and inside influence, actually decide ourselves?

Sounds like a nice theory to live with, actually.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”