Poll
Question:
Do you have free will?
Option 1: I'm predestined to vote yes
votes: 9
Option 2: I've decided to vote no
votes: 10
Option 3: Of course, I have every Rush single
votes: 11
I've been listening to a series of lectures by Richard Muller (the physicist who theorized the existence of the sun's evil twin, Nemesis.) One of the things he discussed was tachyons (which are super-luminal particles.)
If I had a tachyon ray gun, and were to shoot you from your frame of reference the ray would hit you and then I would pull the trigger. In relativity theory all frames of reference are valid; so you being shot violates causality, I must pull the trigger after you have been shot.
Muller said he made the decision not to work in the field of tachyons because he believes he has free will; (at least in the very limited sense that he could decide not to shoot someone) so in his conception of the universe tachyons cannot exist.
I was curious what Languish thought; are you master of your fate, or is your universe filled with tachyons?
I also chose to put in an answer for Josephus... or did I? :unsure:
How would you detect a difference between free will and not free will?
Our biological hardware imposes certain limits, but within those, yes, we have a certain amount of leeway/free will. I can postpone eating for a while and come to no great harm but not indefinetly, etc.
Best poll questions ever! :lol:
:hmm: I keep going back and forth between poll choices.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
:hmm: I keep going back and forth between poll choices.
Check out the poll questions. I hear they're awesome.
I decided to vote no. I mostly do what my wife tells me to do.
I am the slave of my fate,
I am the seaman of my soul.
This poll annoys me, cos now I'm gonna have to go and listen to some Rush. :cool:
The question confused me a bit.. what kind of free will? there are many kinds.
In any case the brain is a material thing and the mind is an appearance of agency the brain uses to perform tasks.
Perhaps.
No. There is no mechanism that can generate free will. Even in the most arcane conceptions invoking the Many Worlds or other quantum concepts, e.g. orchestrated objective reduction (Roger Penrose's deal), you replace predestination with randomness.
What's interesting is if (taking MWI as true) the ability of conscious entities to process information constrains physical possibilities, or if some of the really stupid impulses humans (and other animals) have are a result of all possible states being represented in the multiverse, with idiots being pushed out by smarter alternate-universe analogues who make better decisions. I call it the Many Morons Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
The question confused me a bit.. what kind of free will? there are many kinds.
In any case the brain is a material thing and the mind is an appearance of agency the brain uses to perform tasks.
What sort of tasks? Is my brain doing some sort of task and so forces me to post on Languish? Well that would explain some things.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
The question confused me a bit.. what kind of free will? there are many kinds.
Choose your favorite; if you have choice.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
The question confused me a bit.. what kind of free will? there are many kinds.
In any case the brain is a material thing and the mind is an appearance of agency the brain uses to perform tasks.
And I live in a material world.
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2014, 04:29:55 PM
How would you detect a difference between free will and not free will?
The existence of anything that would violate causality, such as my tachyon ray gun, would demonstrate not free will.
The existence of physical laws demonstrate not free will.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 04, 2014, 05:08:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2014, 04:29:55 PM
How would you detect a difference between free will and not free will?
The existence of anything that would violate causality, such as my tachyon ray gun, would demonstrate not free will.
Is there such a tachyon ray gun or similar device?
That is a fucking great song. :punk:
I have free won't.
Well played Sav.
Ahh, the old Tachyon pistol duel. The best answer is that Tachyon pistols are impossible. Such is the problem with all FTL devices.
Incidentally I meant to pick yes but picked no on accident. :lol:
Quote from: Savonarola on June 04, 2014, 04:25:26 PM
I've been listening to a series of lectures by Richard Muller (the physicist who theorized the existence of the sun's evil twin, Nemesis.) One of the things he discussed was tachyons (which are super-luminal particles.)
If I had a tachyon ray gun, and were to shoot you from your frame of reference the ray would hit you and then I would pull the trigger. In relativity theory all frames of reference are valid; so you being shot violates causality, I must pull the trigger after you have been shot.
Muller said he made the decision not to work in the field of tachyons because he believes he has free will; (at least in the very limited sense that he could decide not to shoot someone) so in his conception of the universe tachyons cannot exist.
Aren't going faster than light and violations of causality against the theory of relativity? If so, then why do we assume that its assumption that all frames of reference of valid is still true?
Seems the logical error there is the assumption that causality requires precedence.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 04:32:43 PM
Our biological hardware imposes certain limits, but within those, yes, we have a certain amount of leeway/free will. I can postpone eating for a while and come to no great harm but not indefinetly, etc.
You can willingly postpone eating past the point at which you come to harm, if you're willing to accept the consequences. Doesn't necessarily mean that you make that choice freely, though.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 05:02:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
The question confused me a bit.. what kind of free will? there are many kinds.
In any case the brain is a material thing and the mind is an appearance of agency the brain uses to perform tasks.
What sort of tasks? Is my brain doing some sort of task and so forces me to post on Languish? Well that would explain some things.
y'know, getting laid, having a job, picking up groceries, making friends tasks like that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2014, 10:25:13 PM
Aren't going faster than light and violations of causality against the theory of relativity? If so, then why do we assume that its assumption that all frames of reference of valid is still true?
Reaching the speed of light for a particle with mass is impossible according to the theory of relativity. Tachyons are theorized to have imaginary mass; so could travel faster than light and not violate relativity.
Relativity does not require causality. Even Einstein theorized the wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridge) which would also violate causality.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Seems the logical error there is the assumption that causality requires precedence.
Elaborate (this is not a Raz trick or trap, I'm genuinely curious).
I would also like to know what you mean by that Yi.
Like it says in Sav's story. The dude pulls the trigger after the other dude dies, and the conclusion is that causality is violated because of the order the acts are performed. I'm saying maybe that's an incorrect assumption about causality. Just because an act (pulling the trigger of a tachyon ray gun) comes after the thing it's supposed to cause (dude dying) doesn't mean the first didn't cause the second.
So if the shooter sees the man get shot and feels guilt and has second thoughts and decides not to pull the trigger...does the past change?
*head explodes*
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 09:12:59 AM
Like it says in Sav's story. The dude pulls the trigger after the other dude dies, and the conclusion is that causality is violated because of the order the acts are performed. I'm saying maybe that's an incorrect assumption about causality. Just because an act (pulling the trigger of a tachyon ray gun) comes after the thing it's supposed to cause (dude dying) doesn't mean the first didn't cause the second.
But that still eliminates the possibility of free will. The person dying necessitates the shooter to pull the trigger; even if you state it as his death is the cause of him being shot. The shooter doesn't have a choice.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 09:55:01 AM
But that still eliminates the possibility of free will. The person dying necessitates the shooter to pull the trigger; even if you state it as his death is the cause of him being shot. The shooter doesn't have a choice.
It's moving the point of choice from when the shooter pulls the trigger to when the person is shot. There's still free will, it just isn't at the moment the shooter pulled the trigger from all reference frames.
Woody Allen - "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."
You folks are too caught up on cause and effect, free will and no free will. Instead, worry about Ide not having a job.
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 10:00:49 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 09:55:01 AM
But that still eliminates the possibility of free will. The person dying necessitates the shooter to pull the trigger; even if you state it as his death is the cause of him being shot. The shooter doesn't have a choice.
It's moving the point of choice from when the shooter pulls the trigger to when the person is shot. There's still free will, it just isn't at the moment the shooter pulled the trigger from all reference frames.
I don't think I'm following here. Four years ago I build the Death Star with a Tachyon Beam canon with Tachyons which travel at 10 times the speed of light. I then decide to blow up planet Alderaan which is 10 light years away. From Alderaan's frame of reference they are destroyed five years before I started building the Death Star. How can I choose not to build the Death Star when I already used it to destroy Alderaan five years ago?
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 10:25:30 AM
I don't think I'm following here. Four years ago I build the Death Star with a Tachyon Beam canon with Tachyons which travel at 10 times the speed of light. I then decide to blow up planet Alderaan which is 10 light years away. From Alderaan's frame of reference they are destroyed five years before I started building the Death Star. How can I choose not to build the Death Star when I already used it to destroy Alderaan five years ago?
The presumption is that the act of choosing has to occur at the same moment as the action that proceeds from it. I don't see why that's true.
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
If that was the case we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the criminal justice system. Or are we predetermined to waste money on things that dont matter because everything is predetermined? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
If that was the case we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the criminal justice system. Or are we predetermined to waste money on things that dont matter because everything is predetermined? :hmm:
Either it is true or it is not true. If it is true, we waste money on criminal justice because we are predetermined to do so. If it is not true, we are not wasting money.
In other words, and this is my own take on it, there is no case I can think of where it functionally matters whether this is true or not.
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
I'm not sure how much of a problem a purely hypothetical and never proven to exist tachyon can have.
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 11:08:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
If that was the case we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the criminal justice system. Or are we predetermined to waste money on things that dont matter because everything is predetermined? :hmm:
Either it is true or it is not true. If it is true, we waste money on criminal justice because we are predetermined to do so. If it is not true, we are not wasting money.
In other words, and this is my own take on it, there is no case I can think of where it functionally matters whether this is true or not.
Except that if it is true predetermination doesnt operate very efficiently. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 11:41:13 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 11:08:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
If that was the case we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the criminal justice system. Or are we predetermined to waste money on things that dont matter because everything is predetermined? :hmm:
Either it is true or it is not true. If it is true, we waste money on criminal justice because we are predetermined to do so. If it is not true, we are not wasting money.
In other words, and this is my own take on it, there is no case I can think of where it functionally matters whether this is true or not.
Except that if it is true predetermination doesnt operate very efficiently. ;)
It still doesn't matter as there are no choices
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
If that was the case we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the criminal justice system.
Why? We don't generally ascribe free will to termites, but we don't let them eat our houses.
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
Under quantum mechanics there are states that can't be predicted despite knowing as much as is possible to know about the system. This is described pretty well by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, where the more precisely you know the position of a particle the less certain you are about its velocity and vice versa.
It doesn't exclude the possibility that the universe when viewed from outside of it is deterministic. If QM holds true, from inside the universe it is impossible to perfectly describe the universe (or even a small portion of it).
:lol:
Only Languish could discover the relationship between tachyons and the criminal justice system.
We are just getting started my friend. Once we fully integrate termites into our theory we will be ready to publish.
Sav: wouldn't the trigger man have to travel faster than light in order to see the effects of his tachyon ray in the past? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 12:57:07 PM
Sav: wouldn't the trigger man have to travel faster than light in order to see the effects of his tachyon ray in the past? :hmm:
Yes, from my example with Alderaan above, Alderaan wouldn't be destroyed in my frame of reference for 11 years after I pulled the trigger (one year for the tachyon beam to reach there, 10 years for the information to come back to me.) From the frame of reference from Alderaan they were destroyed 9 years before I pulled the trigger. In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
Maybe you were cleaning the tachyon gun and it just went off.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
Yes, from my example with Alderaan above, Alderaan wouldn't be destroyed in my frame of reference for 11 years after I pulled the trigger (one year for the tachyon beam to reach there, 10 years for the information to come back to me.) From the frame of reference from Alderaan they were destroyed 9 years before I pulled the trigger. In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
Right, so it seems it's impossible for the trigger man to ever see the effect of his shot, thus free will is maintained. :)
Quote from: PDH on June 05, 2014, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
Maybe you were cleaning the tachyon gun and it just went off.
Alderaan had it coming. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
Yes, from my example with Alderaan above, Alderaan wouldn't be destroyed in my frame of reference for 11 years after I pulled the trigger (one year for the tachyon beam to reach there, 10 years for the information to come back to me.) From the frame of reference from Alderaan they were destroyed 9 years before I pulled the trigger. In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
Right, so it seems it's impossible for the trigger man to ever see the effect of his shot, thus free will is maintained. :)
I don't follow. Why couldn't I detect the impact of my shot eleven years later? Also the Alderaanians detected my shot, what difference does it make whether or not I could?
Never mind. :mad:
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
Under quantum mechanics there are states that can't be predicted despite knowing as much as is possible to know about the system. This is described pretty well by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, where the more precisely you know the position of a particle the less certain you are about its velocity and vice versa.
It doesn't exclude the possibility that the universe when viewed from outside of it is deterministic. If QM holds true, from inside the universe it is impossible to perfectly describe the universe (or even a small portion of it).
This seems like a good argument and one that had occurred to me. I will admit that while I know (some of) what the uncertainty principle says in broad terms, I am not familiar with it in detail. Are you saying that if QM holds true, then the universe cannot be deterministic at the quantum level? It seems to me that saying something cannot be described is different than saying it is nondeterministic.
Quote from: PDH on June 05, 2014, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
Maybe you were cleaning the tachyon gun and it just went off.
Things just dont go off. They were always meant to go off.
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 02:13:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 10:49:45 AM
Not being a physicist, I was unaware of the tachyon problem. However the question has come up in the context of computer science. Konrad Zuse proposed that the universe was a cellular automaton, which means that both time and space are discretized at some level and the transition of every state of the universe to the following state is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, and I don't know that it has been disproven, then it would suggest that there is no such thing as free will.
Under quantum mechanics there are states that can't be predicted despite knowing as much as is possible to know about the system. This is described pretty well by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, where the more precisely you know the position of a particle the less certain you are about its velocity and vice versa.
It doesn't exclude the possibility that the universe when viewed from outside of it is deterministic. If QM holds true, from inside the universe it is impossible to perfectly describe the universe (or even a small portion of it).
This seems like a good argument and one that had occurred to me. I will admit that while I know (some of) what the uncertainty principle says in broad terms, I am not familiar with it in detail. Are you saying that if QM holds true, then the universe cannot be deterministic at the quantum level? It seems to me that saying something cannot be described is different than saying it is nondeterministic.
I think the answer is that all possibilities occur and so it doesnt make sense to talk in terms of one being determined.
Quote from: Maximus on June 05, 2014, 02:13:21 PM
This seems like a good argument and one that had occurred to me. I will admit that while I know (some of) what the uncertainty principle says in broad terms, I am not familiar with it in detail. Are you saying that if QM holds true, then the universe cannot be deterministic at the quantum level? It seems to me that saying something cannot be described is different than saying it is nondeterministic.
I'm saying that as participants in the universe (as everything in the universe is) we can't create or observe a system that is deterministic to the smallest detail in the way that Zuse is describing.
One of the requirements for Zuse's idea to work it to pin down the state of the system at a given point. From there it is possible to determine the future states of the system. Under QM you can't nail down the exact state of the system (knowing the precise position and velocity of all particles at time X) so the future states are equally unknowable.
At the quantum mechanical level it comes down to how you "observe" a particle. In order to see where or how fast a particle is you need something to interact with it. Photons (little bits of light) are used to gauge the position and velocity of a particle. A weak burst of light can let the velocity be determined, but is poor at determining the position of the particle. As the burst of light gets more energetic it can find the position of the particle with greater precision, but it also imparts energy to it. Giving the particle energy means its velocity is now changed by an increasingly undetermined amount. *
So I'm saying that it is possible that the universe is deterministic, but that QM says we can't determine if it is.
* - This is the particle based interpretation. There's also a wave based interpretation (where everything is a wave) that is equally valid, but is usually a lot more difficult to understand.
Eventually you get the message back, "Stop collapsing my waveform, jerk."
Frunk,
If QM is correct and all outcomes are possible then how does it makes sense to speak of only one outcome being predetermined?
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
But free will is subjective personal experience; so for that purpose the only frame of reference that matters is the subject. From the POV of Alderaanis, my actions are pre-determined, but I don't care about their POV (indeed I have decided to annihilate it). From my POV I have a choice.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 03:40:07 PM
Frunk,
If QM is correct and all outcomes are possible then how does it makes sense to speak of only one outcome being predetermined?
It would be better to say that QM means we can't predetermine what possibility is going to happen. In that sense all outcomes are possible, but given the consistent and verifiable behavior of the universe most outcomes are so mind-bogglingly unlikely that it's a serious exaggeration. Someone with a god-like view of the universe not subject to the restrictions of QM could very easily see it as being completely deterministic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2014, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
But free will is subjective personal experience; so for that purpose the only frame of reference that matters is the subject. From the POV of Alderaanis, my actions are pre-determined, but I don't care about their POV (indeed I have decided to annihilate it). From my POV I have a choice.
But you can't decide not to pull the trigger since you already destroyed Alderaan. Your action is predetermined.
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 03:40:07 PM
Frunk,
If QM is correct and all outcomes are possible then how does it makes sense to speak of only one outcome being predetermined?
It would be better to say that QM means we can't predetermine what possibility is going to happen. In that sense all outcomes are possible, but given the consistent and verifiable behavior of the universe most outcomes are so mind-bogglingly unlikely that it's a serious exaggeration. Someone with a god-like view of the universe not subject to the restrictions of QM could very easily see it as being completely deterministic.
I thought QM goes further and predicts that not only are all outcomes possible but that all outcomes do in fact occur in an infinite number of universes?
Here is the first thing I found on a google search.
QuoteOn a larger scale, MWI would mean that everything which can happen will happen in at least one universe. Based on this, Max Tegmark at Princeton University suggested an experiment to prove that the many-worlds interpretation is correct, where one points a loaded gun at one's head, and pulls the trigger. If you were to try this test, it is highly unlikely that you would survive... but if the gun failed to go off, and continued to do so in subsequent tests, you could eventually become reasonably confident that you're in one of the branched universes where something caused the gun to misfire each time. Of course only the "you" in those "miraculous survival" universes would know this, the others would all be dead from gunshot wounds to the head
What if you built your Death Star that had remote tachyon control and you pressed the button to destroy Alderaan on Alderaan? You are committing an impossible act yes?
MWI is only one interpretation, though one supported by evidence (quantum computers work).
Hamilcar and I had this argument like eight years ago. He's way smarter than me (I think he's probably the smartest person that ever posted here), and he thought that there was no material or objective reality to particles in a coherent state, and thus there were no multiple universes. That said, he's also a cosmologist, and QM isn't his field of expertise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 04:35:52 PM
I thought QM goes further and predicts that not only are all outcomes possible but that all outcomes do in fact occur in an infinite number of universes?
Here is the first thing I found on a google search.
QM is a specific theory in Physics that describes actual observed behavior. The MWI is an attempted explanation for why QM works. There's no evidence for MWI being true versus the many other attempted explanations for QM.
I should have never put the tachyon trigger in that box with the damn cat and the isotope.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 04:39:03 PM
MWI is only one interpretation, though one supported by evidence (quantum computers work).
What exactly in quantum computers working implies MWI?
Quote from: PDH on June 05, 2014, 04:44:23 PM
I should have never put the tachyon trigger in that box with the damn cat and the isotope.
:lol:
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 04:44:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 04:35:52 PM
I thought QM goes further and predicts that not only are all outcomes possible but that all outcomes do in fact occur in an infinite number of universes?
Here is the first thing I found on a google search.
QM is a specific theory in Physics that describes actual observed behavior. The MWI is an attempted explanation for why QM works. There's no evidence for MWI being true versus the many other attempted explanations for QM.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 04:45:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 04:39:03 PM
MWI is only one interpretation, though one supported by evidence (quantum computers work).
What exactly in quantum computers working implies MWI?
My gut instinct is that calculations require material, and that material has got to be somewhere. Factoring a large number demands unimaginable amounts of material.
There are more formal reasons, but it's been ages since I've read up on it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
What if you built your Death Star that had remote tachyon control and you pressed the button to destroy Alderaan on Alderaan? You are committing an impossible act yes?
I don't think that even violates free will. I press my tachyon trigger and two years later, from Alderaan's frame of reference, Alderaan is destroyed. In that case, if I have free will, I can decide not to destroy Alderaan before I destroy Alderaan.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 04:47:34 PM
My gut instinct is that calculations require material, and that material has got to be somewhere. Factoring a large number demands unimaginable amounts of material.
There are more formal reasons, but it's been ages since I've read up on it.
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by material.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 04:50:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
What if you built your Death Star that had remote tachyon control and you pressed the button to destroy Alderaan on Alderaan? You are committing an impossible act yes?
I don't think that even violates free will. I press my tachyon trigger and two years later, from Alderaan's frame of reference, Alderaan is destroyed. In that case, if I have free will, I can decide not to destroy Alderaan before I destroy Alderaan.
Ah I thought Alderaan would had to have already been blown up years before?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 04:39:03 PM
Hamilcar and I had this argument like eight years ago.
By the way did you ever get the chance to tell him to get his ass back in here?
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 04:59:19 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 04:50:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
What if you built your Death Star that had remote tachyon control and you pressed the button to destroy Alderaan on Alderaan? You are committing an impossible act yes?
I don't think that even violates free will. I press my tachyon trigger and two years later, from Alderaan's frame of reference, Alderaan is destroyed. In that case, if I have free will, I can decide not to destroy Alderaan before I destroy Alderaan.
Ah I thought Alderaan would had to have already been blown up years before?
No, but from the frame of reference of Alderaan the Death Star will have fired upon it 9 years before you press the trigger. So that does violate free will after all. There's a reason why I'm an engineer and not a physicist. :Embarrass:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 04:39:03 PM
Hamilcar and I had this argument like eight years ago.
By the way did you ever get the chance to tell him to get his ass back in here?
I really ought to, but I forgot I said I would. Also, it's been a long time since we spoke and his social position intimidates me.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 06:03:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 04:39:03 PM
Hamilcar and I had this argument like eight years ago.
By the way did you ever get the chance to tell him to get his ass back in here?
I really ought to, but I forgot I said I would. Also, it's been a long time since we spoke and his social position intimidates me.
Just tell him I said so
His social position should intimidate you too.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
His social position should intimidate you too.
I think not. :)
He's not actually a Carthaginian general, you know.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
His social position should intimidate you too.
Do I: intimidate you?
Yes :)
Edit: To the opening question and Ed's :P
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 10:00:49 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 09:55:01 AM
But that still eliminates the possibility of free will. The person dying necessitates the shooter to pull the trigger; even if you state it as his death is the cause of him being shot. The shooter doesn't have a choice.
It's moving the point of choice from when the shooter pulls the trigger to when the person is shot. There's still free will, it just isn't at the moment the shooter pulled the trigger from all reference frames.
I don't think I'm following here. Four years ago I build the Death Star with a Tachyon Beam canon with Tachyons which travel at 10 times the speed of light. I then decide to blow up planet Alderaan which is 10 light years away. From Alderaan's frame of reference they are destroyed five years before I started building the Death Star. How can I choose not to build the Death Star when I already used it to destroy Alderaan five years ago?
Blowing up Alderaan causes the Rebellion to gain a lot of momentum and they overthrow the Empire in the next three years. You can't build the Death Star because you've been deposed. :contract:
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2014, 06:57:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
His social position should intimidate you too.
Do I: intimidate you?
No. You're just some upper middle class guy who went to Ohio State and got a leg settlement. I envy you, but you're just folks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2014, 04:46:24 PM
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Check out these pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) for other interpretations of QM, virtually all of them valid since there isn't a good way of testing which is true. My favorite head scratchers are the Time Symmetric interpretations, which posit that Heisenberg's Uncertainty arises from the interaction of events from the past and from the future to give rise to indeterminacy in the present. That's like saying you don't know what will happen today because of what happened yesterday and what happened tomorrow.
The mainstream interpretation of QM would probably run through various flavors of the Copenhagen Interpretation into RQM (Relational Interpretation). The advantage of RQM is that it is similar to the Einstein's relativities in not trying to force a "true" reference frame into existence. Instead QM describes the continuous rectification between different reference frames. MWI has a lot of adherents primarily because it is a fun way to look at QM and since there isn't a good way to distinguish between different interpretations why not pick the entertaining one?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 12:43:36 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2014, 06:57:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
His social position should intimidate you too.
Do I: intimidate you?
No. You're just some upper middle class guy who went to Ohio State and got a leg settlement. I envy you, but you're just folks.
I didn't go to college after high school. Couldn't afford it. I went to the university of K-Mart.
BUT I'M MIDDLE CLASS! :w00t:
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 04:31:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2014, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2014, 01:02:59 PM
In relativity theory is both frames of reference are valid; from the reference frame of Alderaan I must pull the trigger.
But free will is subjective personal experience; so for that purpose the only frame of reference that matters is the subject. From the POV of Alderaanis, my actions are pre-determined, but I don't care about their POV (indeed I have decided to annihilate it). From my POV I have a choice.
But you can't decide not to pull the trigger since you already destroyed Alderaan. Your action is predetermined.
From my frame of reference it isn't. And that is the only frame of reference that matters to me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2014, 07:55:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 12:43:36 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2014, 06:57:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
His social position should intimidate you too.
Do I: intimidate you?
No. You're just some upper middle class guy who went to Ohio State and got a leg settlement. I envy you, but you're just folks.
I didn't go to college after high school. Couldn't afford it. I went to the university of K-Mart.
BUT I'M MIDDLE CLASS! :w00t:
Boomers gonna Boom.
And I said "upper middle class" to hurt your feelings, but apparently it backfired. :lol: You're upper class, my friend. :hug:
He eats spam. That makes him a poor with money.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2014, 12:36:43 AM
Blowing up Alderaan causes the Rebellion to gain a lot of momentum and they overthrow the Empire in the next three years. You can't build the Death Star because you've been deposed. :contract:
You know that's not real right.
Well it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far away so that means that I still need to build the Death Star within the next century and shoot it in the direction of Alderaan to blow it up 1 billion years ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2014, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2014, 12:36:43 AM
Blowing up Alderaan causes the Rebellion to gain a lot of momentum and they overthrow the Empire in the next three years. You can't build the Death Star because you've been deposed. :contract:
You know that's not real right.
I'm just addressing the premise that Sav set up, that he built the Death Star and blew up Alderaan.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2014, 09:29:51 PM
I'm just addressing the premise that Sav set up, that he built the Death Star and blew up Alderaan.
he blew up Alderaan how? A tachyon ray has no way to interact with the planet, remember; it has no energy and an imaginary mass.
That's the problem with using a tachyon gun as the basis for this conundrum; the only person that knows you fired the gun and hit the planet "in the past" is you.
I had to pay the lawyer to make a will.