quote:

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

yeah that is very true actually, and people would still have "free" choice to do whatever they wanted then, right?

quote:

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

No one should be forced to do something, that's not what i'm supporting, i just want a society where everyone can make their choices ("free" choices) but society should try to "bias" their choices to a good way (no crimes, like to work etc..). that may be kind of totalitarianism/brainwashing but that's the way to go if you want a "good" society.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant 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.

That is one way of looking at it, but it's more of a refutation of that trapped-soul argument than it is a theory of its own.

There's a whole area of mathematics dedicated to infinity and determinism (try a search on "omega" numbers), but the point is that Andrew's trapped-soul argument hinges on the concept of determinism. It's based on the notion that a single individual will always perform the same action under the same set of circumstances. However, this simply isn't true, specifically for the reasons of:

1) There is no such thing as an "individual", as pointed out already - an individual being and its environment can potentially be seen as separate systems, much like the protons and electrons of an atom can be seen as separate systems, but they are open systems, with a constant exchange of matter and energy. In no form of science is it ever possible to model the interaction of two open systems unless many many assumptions are made, and those assumptions will introduce a probability of error.

2) Determinism, by definition, implies predictability. Human beings are not deterministic - that's a common misconception among creationists. We're random. To say that we have no control over our actions, automatically implies that there can be no variance in those actions under the same set of conditions, but there is variance, there is randomness, and it makes the "no-free-choice" argument a self-defeating one. Now, if we want to, we can call that randomness "free choice" - it's up to the reader.

3) Even if we were to accept the original argument despite its logical inconsistencies and lack of scientific foundation, it still does not imply that everyone should have the right to a decent life, or that everyone should have any rights at all. We don't need to dig into moral relativism to say that that's an opinion, not a fact.

___________________
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 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.

The only thing i say is that we COULD predict ones choices if we knew all the variables. Now, that is obviously not possible (with todays knowledge and probably not with tomorrow's either). But in theory we can do it... And theoretically we CAN predict also all the random factors, even though that is practically IMPOSSIBLE. But in theory it should be fine. even though also that is wrong for some reason, it doesn't contradict my theory, free choice doesn't exsist and we are only slaves to our environment (and in that you could possibly also count in randomness) and our brain.

And this is probably my last post here for today, new years eve party starting sooon

So happy new year!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew No one should be forced to do something, that's not what i'm supporting, i just want a society where everyone can make their choices ("free" choices) but society should try to "bias" their choices to a good way (no crimes, like to work etc..). that may be kind of totalitarianism/brainwashing but that's the way to go if you want a "good" society.

Exactly . My argument for welfare ... basic necessities and beyond that no one should be FORCED to provide more. Done and done!

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That is one way of looking at it, but it's more of a refutation of that trapped-soul argument than it is a theory of its own. There's a whole area of mathematics dedicated to infinity and determinism (try a search on "omega" numbers), but the point is that Andrew's trapped-soul argument hinges on the concept of determinism. It's based on the notion that a single individual will always perform the same action under the same set of circumstances. However, this simply isn't true, specifically for the reasons of: 1) There is no such thing as an "individual", as pointed out already - an individual being and its environment can potentially be seen as separate systems, much like the protons and electrons of an atom can be seen as separate systems, but they are open systems, with a constant exchange of matter and energy. In no form of science is it ever possible to model the interaction of two open systems unless many many assumptions are made, and those assumptions will introduce a probability of error. 2) Determinism, by definition, implies predictability. Human beings are not deterministic - that's a common misconception among creationists. We're random. To say that we have no control over our actions, automatically implies that there can be no variance in those actions under the same set of conditions, but there is variance, there is randomness, and it makes the "no-free-choice" argument a self-defeating one. Now, if we want to, we can call that randomness "free choice" - it's up to the reader. 3) Even if we were to accept the original argument despite its logical inconsistencies and lack of scientific foundation, it still does not imply that everyone should have the right to a decent life, or that everyone should have any rights at all. We don't need to dig into moral relativism to say that that's an opinion, not a fact.

thanks a lot for clearing that up, I can actually follow
We all should stop thinking too mucht though and just flow. Not thinking why we set the right foot backwards but just keep dancing to the music of life

The entire system of authoritative punishment by the state can only be justified when a free will, when a *guilt* (the ability to subjectively hold some1 repsonsible for his behavior) is assumed. Only when you could say that the individual was indeed able to act otherwise in the specific situation can you blame him. The Law is not going into physics though and is only restricted to anomalities like mental disability or say...influence by substances, a drug addiction etc.
As I'll finally sit down and study more of my Law books I'll be able to give you more aspects from this perspective

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

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant thanks a lot for clearing that up, I can actually follow We all should stop thinking too mucht though and just flow. Not thinking why we set the right foot backwards but just keep dancing to the music of life The entire system of authoritative punishment by the state can only be justified when a free will, when a *guilt* (the ability to subjectively hold some1 repsonsible for his behavior) is assumed. Only when you could say that the individual was indeed able to act otherwise in the specific situation can you blame him. The Law is not going into physics though and is only restricted to anomalities like mental disability or say...influence by substances, a drug addiction etc. As I'll finally sit down and study more of my Law books I'll be able to give you more aspects from this perspective

I more or less expressed my opinion of the use of law even in cases of strict determinism in my last post in this thread if you care to read:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=8

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I more or less expressed my opinion of the use of law even in cases of strict determinism in my last post in this thread if you care to read: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=8

too...much...text...

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 too...much...text...

too ... bad

___________________
Retro ...

I'm going to be anal here (computer engineer in me coming out), and yes this is a little off-topic.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only relates to actions on a quantum level, not a macroscopic one. It states that the more precisely a position is known, the less precisely the momentum is known. Actually though, this has been under quite a lot of debate recently, as this postulate was constructed before much of what we know of quantum mechanics was known. Today it is believed that you can know both position and momentum of subatomic particles to such a high percentage of probability that you can in fact know both position and momentum for "practical" purposes.

My main point is that it only applies to non-macroscopic applications. It would suck if you saw a car coming towards you and could tell where it was, but not how fast it was coming at you. I personally think that the unertainty principle will one day be disproven, or at least pushed back to a realm where our oberservation abilities do not allow clear perception. Is our universe deterministic? I don't know, but I find it very hard to concede that it is purely indeterminite. Star Trek transporters...here we come!!!

Just on a side note, may people state the uncertainty principle as having to do with oberservation. In example, someone will say "the act of observation changes the state of a function, and makes measuring it accurately impossible." That is actually untrue, as even without observation, it has been shown to be impossible to know both position and momentum.

If you're interested in this kind of "stuff," I recommend read about the EPR paradox, the Bell inequality or the hidden variable theory...all very intersting, almost philosphical science questions along these lines.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew The only thing i say is that we COULD predict ones choices if we knew all the variables. Now, that is obviously not possible (with todays knowledge and probably not with tomorrow's either). But in theory we can do it... And theoretically we CAN predict also all the random factors, even though that is practically IMPOSSIBLE. But in theory it should be fine. even though also that is wrong for some reason, it doesn't contradict my theory, free choice doesn't exsist and we are only slaves to our environment (and in that you could possibly also count in randomness) and our brain.

And the only thing I say is that you are factually wrong and don't understand the counter-argument. It is NOT possible, not even theoretically, because you can't know the contents of an infinite set! Also, you can't predict random variables, no matter what you say. It is not a practical limitation - it is a theoretical impossibility!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm going to be anal here (computer engineer in me coming out), and yes this is a little off-topic. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only relates to actions on a quantum level, not a macroscopic one. It states that the more precisely a position is known, the less precisely the momentum is known. Actually though, this has been under quite a lot of debate recently, as this postulate was constructed before much of what we know of quantum mechanics was known. Today it is believed that you can know both position and momentum of subatomic particles to such a high percentage of probability that you can in fact know both position and momentum for "practical" purposes. My main point is that it only applies to non-macroscopic applications. It would suck if you saw a car coming towards you and could tell where it was, but not how fast it was coming at you. I personally think that the unertainty principle will one day be disproven, or at least pushed back to a realm where our oberservation abilities do not allow clear perception. Is our universe deterministic? I don't know, but I find it very hard to concede that it is purely indeterminite. Star Trek transporters...here we come!!! Just on a side note, may people state the uncertainty principle as having to do with oberservation. In example, someone will say "the act of observation changes the state of a function, and makes measuring it accurately impossible." That is actually untrue, as even without observation, it has been shown to be impossible to know both position and momentum. If you're interested in this kind of "stuff," I recommend read about the EPR paradox, the Bell inequality or the hidden variable theory...all very intersting, almost philosphical science questions along these lines.

I'll have to read about those bottom things to really understand, but here is my attempt to clarify:

Yes, it's true that we can know both position and velocity in a macroscopic sense, like a car coming down the road. However, this doesn't defy quantum principles - the issue with a car is that there is uncertainty in your reference point. You have an almost precise measurement of speed, but how accurate is your measurement of position? You can't calculate the position of a "car", because it's a composite object. Which point on the car? Are you talking about the position of the windshield, the stereo, the driver's seat? I guess, if you're trying to avoid being hit by that car, you'd be taking the front bumper? But which point on that front bumper? If that car was accelerated close to the speed of light, then the front and back of the car would actually be moving at different speeds on a macro level.

The further you try to narrow down your reference point, the more uncertain you are about exactly how fast it is going. Quantum principles still apply on a macro level, they just aren't noticeable.

I would like to see the source on the belief that we can know both the position and speed of a particle to equally high percentages. I believe that it has in fact been proven that we cannot. You have to understand that the HUP doesn't refer to "uncertainty" as such - it refers to randomness. The probability of position and velocity are distributed over certain intervals. Make one interval smaller, and the other gets larger. It is not a matter of "knowing" where they are, it is the concept that these particles are actually wave functions that take on random behaviour.

The most often cited proof of this is the "pinhole" experiment, where light is refracted through a very small slit. It's been shown repeatedly in labs to college students that when you project single photons through that slit, and have a screen behind the slit to collect the photons, they will actually form diffraction patterns - that is, the light will not be focused on any particular spot, but rather there will be a distribution (diffraction pattern) on the screen which is stronger at some points and weaker at others. The smaller you make this slit/pinhole, the larger the diffraction pattern. Specifically, the more you restrict the position of the original photon, the less you know about where it's going to go (velocity).

Conclusion: The HUP is a pretty well-studied and well-proven principle that isn't likely to be disproven any time soon.

But, I'll take a look at those things you mentioned and see if that changes anything... for now, I say that there are too many things wrong with the determinism concept:
1. There is an infinite set of variables and we can never figure out an infinite state.
2. There is a finite amount of uncertainty in those variables that we can never get around.
3. Even if we could get around 1 and 2, there is still visible random behaviour, i.e. as shown in the pinhole experiment. Even if you could find an exact state at one instant in time, the state at the next instant in time is random.

Hope this all makes sense.

___________________
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

Well, admitting my "nerdiness," here is the proof I read about a year ago concerning overcoming the uncertainty principle.

LINK

Like I said, it seems to me that uncertainty is just a by-product of the resolution upon which you are able to see your environment. If a car is just taken as a "car" in the general sense, you are able to tell both its position and momentum. As you "zoom in" on the car, and reach smaller magnitudes of resolution, you become unable to determine the two with consistancy because our equipment to meausure both becomes more inaccurate. It seems as our ability to "see" smaller details increases, it just pushes uncertainty to smaller scales, beyond our view. Again, above I posted the current proof against uncertainty (that I subscribe to), although I haven't seen much in the way of critiques against his arguement.

On another note, I always thought the pinhole experiment was an experiment on the duality of light. I'll have try to find some sources on how it also relates to the uncertainty principle. I know it shows the ability of light to travel as both a wave and particle, but didn't know it could lead to any findings on general quantum uncertainty. Do you have any links? It sounds interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, admitting my "nerdiness," here is the proof I read about a year ago concerning overcoming the uncertainty principle. LINK Like I said, it seems to me that uncertainty is just a by-product of the resolution upon which you are able to see your environment. If a car is just taken as a "car" in the general sense, you are able to tell both its position and momentum. As you "zoom in" on the car, and reach smaller magnitudes of resolution, you become unable to determine the two with consistancy because our equipment to meausure both becomes more inaccurate. It seems as our ability to "see" smaller details increases, it just pushes uncertainty to smaller scales, beyond our view. Again, above I posted the current proof against uncertainty (that I subscribe to), although I haven't seen much in the way of critiques against his arguement. On another note, I always thought the pinhole experiment was an experiment on the duality of light. I'll have try to find some sources on how it also relates to the uncertainty principle. I know it shows the ability of light to travel as both a wave and particle, but didn't know it could lead to any findings on general quantum uncertainty. Do you have any links? It sounds interesting.

I guess I wasn't very clear about the car, the point I was trying to make was that you can't take a "car" in the "general sense" any more than you can take an "individual" in the "general sense". If you had to pick a coordinate where that car was located, where would you pick it? You can pick a point within the car, but that is not really the "car's" position. Does that make sense? In order to measure position, you'd have to choose a reference point, but you can't.

The pinhole experiment was on the duality of light, but the duality principle applies to electrons and other particles just as it does to light. I don't really have links because the stuff I learned was mostly from a physics course in university which, admittedly, I didn't understand much of. It was about solid state devices and used a lot of quantum mechanics, and a lot of stuff about quantum tunneling and lots of modern engineering principles are based on the fact that electrons (and other particles) actually have probability wave functions, just as light does. That part, I understood.

I'll read your link, and see if I can find one of my own, but what I'm talking about is a lengthy subject so it might be hard to find...

___________________
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