Logic really doesn’t have anything to do with it. Quantum mechanics won’t fall neatly into our current logical notions. Keep in mind that by your own reasoning, if you can’t prove something’s random, you also can’t prove it’s not. If you tried to prove an apple will fall each time you drop it, you can really only show it does so each time you try. Who knows if infinite repetitions would produce different results?
At any rate, bear in mind logic’s own failings- resolve any number of the famous logical paradoxes before you use logic to tell the Universe how to behave. Or if I may, “Albert, stop telling God what to do!”:lol:
BTW, I don’t think anyone’s asserting that everything that occurs on a quantum level is random- that’s far from the case. But it appears that some things truly are. Will a later theory explain/predict them? Perhaps. But it’s entirely possible that some things are truly random and spontaneous.
It opens the door for free will. What exactly is this will thing and what is meant by free is a whole 'nother potato however…
More importantly, it means that we can’t predict everything to perfect accuracy.
One might go so far as to try to take down causality as a whole with it. “Perhaps it is all chaos, we, living in a chaotic universe, simply pretend its rational, and it fits because we want it to fit.” uh… I didn’t explain that very well. ah well… there’s actually some really good arguments and implications of this sort of idea (one’s that are actually profound). Unfortunately, I’m not smart enough for these (Oh, and I mean this seperately from Hume’s whole no-causality thing… well there connected obviously, but you know what I mean)
QM in general brings up all sorts of cute metaphysical questions, like the whole parallel universes thing.
Some believe it is the key to understanding consciousness (as in awareness too, not just choice.)
The awareness question is my favourite, but may be a little off-topic for this post…
It’s hard to tell. As you say, some things we perceive as random are simply things we don’t have the ability to understand or are too complex to easily predict. A couple of examples include long term weather and things like dice rolls. The most basic mechanisms of each is pretty straightforward, but predicting them is very complex.
I’m not so sure about this. Randomness might be in contention with determinism, but I don’t think that it enables free will. We can’t control randomness, so the physical system producing our thoughts and actions is no more in our control than a deterministic system would be.
So complex, in fact, that in order to determine the outcome, the actual event would have to occur. This is a really neat-o idea because it doesn’t carry the typical problems true ‘randomness’ does, but has all the interesting and useful side-effects (like a will that may as well be free).
Another interesting idea to introduce here is that things cannot be observed without being affected by the observation. (this was brought earlier in this thread I think, but unfortunetly dismissed). This implies that we cannot acheive a state of removed, objective observation, because even by the act of observing, we become a part of the system we are attempting to analyze. (did that make sense?) anyway, this again ties into the determinism thing because our knowledge of past events affects the outcome of current ones, rendering predictability impossible (one run’s into a nutty infinity thing). Oh ya, this might at first seem obvious, especially from, say, a sociollogical or psychological point of view, but think about from a physics perspective… or a metaphysical one.
that’s why I said earlier that randomness might not be the right word. Nondetermined… unpredictable maybe. Most importantly, it means that the outcome of situation cannot be known until it happens. No model, no formula, no abstraction or simulation of any sort can predict it perfectly.
Therefore, our actions are not ‘determined’(by external forces that can be reduced to abstractions anyway), but they are not ‘random’ either. It seems to me this is exactly the kind of circumstances where will would come into play (while still maintaining a monist view of the universe.)
But unpredictability can’t form the basis of a will. A will denotes intention. Or are you suggesting that our brains can control this unpredictability?
“Second, if we can’t predict something, if it is unpredictable to us, then what does it matter if it is “truely random”?”
“then one may call it unpredictable, which is for all intents and purposes, random (even if it follows probabilities).”
I make a huge destinction between unpredictable and random. The diffirence is that unpredictability does not necesitate the lack of reason. Unpredictability is completely compatible with determinism. Determinism does not say that we can predict everything. It merely says that everything happens for a reason. Wheather we know that reason or not is beside the point. But “True Randomness” is a direct contradiction to determinism. My definition of it is literally, having NO reason. Again, I fail to see how Quantum Physics suggests anything happening for no reason. It suggests things happen for no APPARENT reason, keyword apparent, in that we just dont know why it happens, and we may never know. But our not knowing does not mean it does not exist. A deaf man has no knowledge or awareness of soundwaves, he will never be able to predict anything regarding sound, because he lacks the means to detect it. This does not mean that soundwaves do not exist. In the same way, we have found that we lack the means to detect position and velocity of quantum particles. This does not mean that quantum particles dont trully act for no reason, just they act for reasons unkown to us. This is the important destinction I make. Am I missing something about Quantum Physics that may suggest “True Randomness”? Though I still fail to even imagine how something could ever suggest true randomness.
yes and no.
This is a complicated question. Our brains are certainly a factor yes. Though to some degree, they are a coincidence… perhaps, facilities with which awareness differentiates concepts of self with concepts of other (among other things). But thats for later…
Why not?
From an abstract, reductionist point of view (how science is typically viewed) you’re right. But such a view doesn’t even allow the consideration of something like a will…
it demands a teleological view of the universe. but I don’t see any other explaination. not that I’m using it as an easyout. it just really feels like reductionism will not answer the most important philosophical questions: why? or (less controversely) how? (maybe not…)
Damn right it does.
Abstract reductionism is really really great at predicting things (not perfect, but good). The problem is that according to it, we (as in us as observers, being aware) are completely unnecessary and shouldn’t really exist in the first place. But we do. In fact thats really the only thing one can be certain of; that one is aware; that one is experiencing something (even if that something is an illusion or a product of itself). Our models of particles shouldn’t be able to give rise to such beings, but they do…
oops, let a bit much slip there I’m sure some of that was unneccesary, off-topic, and will piss the hell out of a lot of people, but oh well
Seriously, though, maybe I’m remembering other posts of yours wrong; What is your reason for holding a determinist view, and what exactly do you mean by deterministism?
Everything happening for a reason… that sounds a lot like a teleological viewpoint… I responded to you as though you were more of a “laws of physics govern everything” kind of determinist, as thats what I see most often on this site.
The determinist view “everything happens for a reason” goes far beyond physics, or any assumption of causality for that matter, because it says (if I’m interpreting you correctly) that there must be a reason for that causality. There must be a prime mover. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but I do think that is the implication of what you’re saying.
Yeah, I think all he’s saying there is that everything is theoretically predictable (happens for a reason), but we might not be able to predict everything.
“Nondetermined… unpredictable maybe. Most importantly, it means that the outcome of situation cannot be known until it happens. No model, no formula, no abstraction or simulation of any sort can predict it perfectly.”
This does not contradict determinism. The uncertainty principle only says that our method of measurement is flawed. Could it not be possible that we will someday find an alternate method of detection that will not disturb the process, and thus provide us with predictable results? Even if this possibility does not exist, this is no indication that there is no reason that things happen on the quantum level, merely that we will never know the reason. All of which fits with determinism. Again, Quantum Physics never suggests true randomness, it only suggests apparent randomness, or even maybe inevitable unpredictability, meaning that we will never know the reasons. This is ofcourse, for all intents and purposes, random, but do you see how it does not contradict determinism? Only TRUE, ABSOLUTE randomness, the complete utter lack of any reason, any cause, a total break of the chain of causality, actually contradicts determinism. This is not what Quantum Physics suggests, is it?
EDIT: Just noticed your new post Quib, I shall respond:
yes.
some might say I’m stretching monism; it sounds pretty metaphysical. But I don’t think so.
I think it is all “only matter”. “only matter” however, is pretty amazing…
With regards to the ai post, man I wish I’d gotten involved there… ah well, it had gone on too long for me to jump in by the time I saw it (ie too lazy to read it all ) Edit: Whoa, AI thread only 2 pages? I coulda sworn there was one only a day ago that was like 6… maybe I will read this…
With regards to your quote, I think we may be a lot more like minded than it appears.
Well maybe. the ‘feedback loop’ is, in my view, central to conciousness, or at-least self-awareness. however…
Even if this creates the sensation/concept of conciousness, there still must be something that can in fact feel the chemical sensation or given meaning to the arrangement of matter that is the concept. It explains self-awareness, but not awareness.
That’s kind of a roundabout way of saying things, but hopefully it makes sense.
Out of curiousity, have you ‘Godel, Escher, Bach’ by Douglas Hofstadter (gotta love that last name )?
Ya, I’m saying that its not even theoretically possible. But both of us are gonna have a really tough time convincing each other though…
I think so mostly because of the observer affecting the observed thing… but of course I can’t be certain (just like we can’t be certain of anything, not even that)
I dont believe theres a prime mover, a start to the causality. I dont know. There could be. It could also be an infinite chain of causality. I leave this in uncertainty. Untill I have evidence to suggest either, a big pool of uncertainty is the only place these ideas belong. Now, the only reason I believe so strongly in determinism is because of predictability. BECAUSE so much can be predicted, this suggests the existence of laws. Like the laws of physics. I am not going to say these laws are absolute. They are as absolute as their probability. If something has happend 100/100 times, this does not mean it will happen again the 101st, but it does suggest a pattern, it sugests the law. The longer the statistics stay at 100%, the more absolute the law gets. But when we encounter something like the uncertainty principle, this is no indication of the absence of laws. It is EQUALLY likely that we merely cant observe the law as it is that there is no law. We are uncertain. But the fact that we have observed laws in just about every other facet of life suggests, or makes it more probable that these laws will keep existing. Thus I come to the logical conclusion that it is more probable that everything happens for a reason, that everything has a cause and the chain of causality goes on.
“mostly because of the observer affecting the observed thing”
Well this seems to only apply to the method of observation we have right now. It could be possible there may be an alternate method of observation that does not affect the observed. The above quote is not a pattern we notice. As far as I know it only applies to how we measure position and velocity of quantum particles. Its not like all observers in general affect the observed. Schrodinger’s cat does not work, because us opening our eyes has no apparent effect on the process’ at work within the box.
Quantum mechanics won’t fall neatly into our current logical notions. Keep in mind that by your own reasoning, if you can’t prove something’s random, you also can’t prove it’s not. If you tried to prove an apple will fall each time you drop it, you can really only show it does so each time you try. Who knows if infinite repetitions would produce different results?
(Oh, and I mean this seperately from Hume’s whole no-causality thing… well there connected obviously, but you know what I mean)
I’m sure some of that was unneccesary, off-topic, and will piss the hell out of a lot of people, but oh well 