View Single Post
Old 08-06-2019, 02:50 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,319
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I don't believe that's true with regard to QM. If you check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you'll see that this is true at best only if "nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story," an interpretation hotly disputed by many.

To echo what I said earlier, people are trying to use words to develop new science, instead of using math. This never works.

I see your later posts, which are a wonderful example of using words to create pseudoscientific nonsense. First, you can't ignore QM randomness. Second, the output of a reaction, even given known laws, may be random or non-predictable. Nothing about free will is prevented or forbidden because we must work within the laws of physics. Or have you a solution to the three-body problem in your back pocket you're not telling anyone about? Third, you provide no definition of free will that makes it possible to know if other beings than humans have it. That's because you also have no definition of consciousness, which, as I keep saying, you need before you make any
statements about free will. Nothing in your argument makes sense at all.
Always so pleasant. Nothing in your response makes sense at all either. I never said I was ignoring qm randomness. I mentioned I'd be addressing it later in the post.

Just because we can't predict something doesn't mean it's not governed by physical laws. Chaotic systems may be difficult to model, but they still follow the laws of physics and certainly don't appear to contradict them. Afaik, and I could very well be wrong, the three body problem can't be solved with an analytic solution because it's got 18 degrees of freedom and 9 differential equations - that doesn't mean it's not governed by known laws. But does it appear to violate them?

I've already said I believe the universe is causally determined and that Dennet's definition via Compatibilism is not free will. We are biological machines. What we experience as free will is an illusion. On a Newtonian level, if we started the universe over from scratch with the same initial conditions and there were no quantum effects, we'd always make the exact same decisions.

Adding back quantum effects definitely leaves the door open for free will, but there is no evidence for it and brain scan studies show we make decisions before we are even consciously aware of them. The only possible reason one can believe free will exists given current theories and without invoking God is because you FEEL like it's true and don't like the idea that you're a machine.

Rather than define consciousness which obviously exists on a gradient let me ask you - Do you believe simple bacteria is concious and/or has free will? And how about lay off the hostility when answering?