Put differently, we've pretty much concluded that events in the future are not fixed by the state of the universe now. Does that invalidate the notion of block time? — Banno
Because you failed to explain consciousness and measurements properly, both of which are a causal processes.You are asserting that determinism is the case. I am not asserting that it is not the case, but that we have no way of knowing either way — Janus
This is basically dualism and all the problems it brings, like how deterministic and indeterministic things interact - deterministically or indeterministically?Can't we have both? Some things are deterministic, some aren't. — jorndoe
Put differently, we've pretty much concluded that events in the future are not fixed by the state of the universe now. Does that invalidate the notion of block time? — Banno
So, where would we start? Rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not? How about a mosquito? — Metaphysician Undercover
So our beliefs are determined by evidence? If not, then what determines what you believe? If I asked you why you believe in something, wouldn't you provide me reasons for what you believe, and those reasons would determine what you believe, no?We go by evidence. Say, findings like planetary orbits, quantumatics, ..., whatever. The world doesn't care about our metaphysics or whatever we think. Rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts. — jorndoe
We go by evidence. Say, findings like planetary orbits, quantumatics, ..., whatever. The world doesn't care about our metaphysics or whatever we think. Rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts. — jorndoe
What determines that we cant know either way? — Harry Hindu
But the microphysical is really the same reality as the macrophysical, just from a different view, and the macrophysical is deterministic and includes humans and their thoughts, beliefs and views. So, as I've been saying, I think that a proper explanation of consciousness could help to unify the different views into a consistent whole. We are missing crucial information to make sense of these contradictory views.We cannot examine microphysical processes such as to be able to decide if they are truly uncaused or not. The consensus among the experts seems to be that they are uncaused. — Janus
Or that there is a causal loop. Think about the causal relationship between predators and prey.We could never know whether we had arrived at the "first cause", and if we had it, logically, would have to be uncaused in any case. — Janus
But the microphysical is really the same reality as the macrophysical, just from a different view, and the macrophysical is deterministic and includes humans and their thoughts, beliefs and views. So, as I've been saying, I think that a proper explanation of consciousness could help to unify the different views into a consistent whole. We are missing crucial information to make sense of these contradictory views. — Harry Hindu
Or that there is a causal loop. — Harry Hindu
What would proof of determinism or indeterminism look like? It seems to me that if the latter were true, our posts wouldn't continue to exist in the original state long enough to have a conversation, much less be able to make any predictions, except by luck and our success rate using the theories we have is much higher than 50% - that smart phones wouldn't work so well for so many. If indeterminism were true, why would we ever have any evidence for determinism?Sure we could come up with better explanations, but no matter how good any explanation is it could never prove "rigidly" or absolutely deterministic causation, even in regard to the "macro'. — Janus
Sure, ever heard of the observer effect? And it doesn't have to be that simple of a loop. There could be other processes involved that make it more complex where there is more than the radioactive decay and a "something else" involved.How would that would work? Take the example of radioactive decay; when the particle is emitted either it is uncaused or it is the result of something else acting on it to make it happen. If something else acts on it to make it happen, are you suggesting that "something else" could be acted upon by the radioactive particle itself in order to make the unknown agent in turn act upon the particle? — Janus
True backward causation introduces true randomness (even if the universe was otherwise deterministic, the moment that information from the future arrives introduces a fork in the timeline, and from the perspective of someone living through that moment it’s random which timeline they “end up in”). So it seems that something that seems to approximate backward causation (ordinary prediction) would in turn introduce something that looks approximately like randomness, i.e. chaos, even if everything was technically strictly deterministic. — Pfhorrest
a spin-down positron is just a spin-up electron moving backwards in time. (This is true of all antimatter.) — Kenosha Kid
Nice commentary, Kid. In 1954 I wrote a short paper on this for my physics class in high school. At the time I loved reading science fiction. Of course, the technical details were beyond me, but my teacher, an elderly lady we all loved was impressed. — jgill
Sure, ever heard of the observer effect? And it doesn't have to be that simple of a loop. There could be other processes involved that make it more complex where there is more than the radioactive decay and a "something else" involved. — Harry Hindu
I don't understand how countless stochastic micro-physical processes could produce an entity in the macro world which perceives a world that is inherently stochastic, as non-stochastic, by chance. It requires mental gymnastics that my mind isn't capable of performing.That the macro world seems deterministic to us is, according to QM, most likely because countless stochastic micro-physical processes by purely chance statistically add up to seem deterministic and are thus predictable. — Janus
This is a strange concept. How does some part of the universe move backwards in time while another part moves forward? I thought time was really just a change, and that change relative so some other change is how we measure change/time. So any change some positron undertakes is always a move forward in time. How can something in the universe change "backward" while the rest of the universe is changing "forwards", or is this concept of time inaccurate, or inapplicable in QM?But there is a charge-parity-time symmetry in the universe that is obeyed in this phenomenon: a spin-down positron is just a spin-up electron moving backwards in time. — Kenosha Kid
Hence my point that QM and classical physics need to be unified - kind of like how genetics and the theory of evolution by natural selection are unified micro and macro theories that support each other, not contradict each other like QM and classic physics. The glue to unify them, IMO, would be a proper theory of consciousness. — Harry Hindu
In a double slit experiment, there's "a setup" where you see an interference pattern and "another setup" where you do not. So (a) conscious observers can tell the difference between seeing an interference pattern and not seeing interference patterns. Suppose then that consciousness had something to do with QM; one would then think one could (b) create a setup such that if an observer (subject) was conscious, the (conscious) experimenter would see no interference pattern, but if the observer (subject) had no consciousness, the (conscious) experimenter would see one.I was asking you and Kenosha if the observer effect has more to do with how observations/consciousness behaves rather than how quantum particles behave when being observed. — Harry Hindu
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.