Therefore we are not physical things. — Bartricks
Address the argument. — Bartricks
Less powerfully supported, by powerfully supported nevertheless, is this premise: — Bartricks
There's no delay to consciousness and I doubt you've read the Libet article. — Bartricks
But we - the conscious things - are not physical things. — Bartricks
Definitely causeless, but it may be that something that lacks a cause can, in some sense, also be said to be its own cause. — Bartricks
What you're doing is assuming that we're physical things. But that's just a dogma of the modern age.
It is a self-evident truth of reason - one you yourself appeal to - that free will is incompatible with our decisions having been antecedently determined.
But it is even more powerfully self-evident that we have free will.
Consider: in the lengthy debate over free will the majority of those who have thought long and hard about the issue still conclude that we do, in fact, have free will. They either conclude that compatibilism is true, or they conclude that incompatbilism is true but that the indeterminism is says is necessary for free will actually obtains (libertarianism). Only a minority (albeit quite a significant minority) conclude that we lack free will. So evidently most of those who think long and hard about this issue recognise that it is powerfully self-evident to reason that we possess free will.
So this premise:
1. We have free will
is exceptionally powerfully supported by our rational intuitions.
Less powerfully supported, by powerfully supported nevertheless, is this premise:
2. Free will is incompatible with everything we do being antecedently determined (that is, if we have free will, then not everything we do is antecedently determined)
The conclusion that follows from these two premises is this:
3. Therefore, not everything we do is antecedently determined.
But as you point out, this premise is also true:
4. If we are physical things, then everything we do is antecedently determined
And what follows from 4 and 5 is this:
5. Therefore we are not physical things. — Bartricks
as far as the test goes scientifically it actually depends on the observer of the results as to where the particle is just to add more confusion it is if it remembers witch observer determining the outcome if we are talking the split particle test using photons units of light particles — mostlywrong
So one comment is that "I'm not a scientist" should be emphasized there.
Why are you proposing that quantum mechanics is deterministic, exactly? — Terrapin Station
In quantum mechanics, concepts such as force, momentum, and position are defined by linear operators that operate on the quantum state; at speeds that are much lower than the speed of light, Newton's laws are just as exact for these operators as they are for classical objects. At speeds comparable to the speed of light, the second law holds in the original form F = dp/dt, where F and p are four-vectors. — Wikipedia
The physical is something that only exists in our heads. How then can we be physical if we contain the physical? — Echarmion
I'm not a scientist but Newtonian physics applies at the quantum level. If I'm correct that means particles, their position and velocity, are deterministic in behavior. — TheMadFool
Knowledge of initial states of particles can be used to predict their properties at some other time in the future.
We're physical, our brains are physical i.e. we're all made up of particles. That implies our brains are deterministic machines if you'll allow me to use that word.
If that's the case then freewill shouldn't exist. It's existence would violate the laws of nature and it would be a true miracle. This can't be. — TheMadFool
You're saying measurement is non-deterministic, I take that to mean random, so maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Tell me if I've got this right: Everything up to a measurement is deterministic, then before a measurement the path splits and there are multiple versions of the same particle, then a measurement happens totally randomly and one of those particles becomes "real". Is that about right?While a quantum state evolves deterministically (as a superposition of states), measurement is non-deterministic (returning a single definite state per the probabilities given by the Born rule) — Andrew M
You're saying measurement is non-deterministic, I take that to mean random, so maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Tell me if I've got this right: Everything up to a measurement is deterministic, then before a measurement the path splits and there are multiple versions of the same particle, then a measurement happens totally randomly and one of those particles becomes "real". Is that about right? — Sunnyside
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.