NationStates Jolt Archive

What is it?

Few points i must make

1) Since god can niether be proved nor disproved then he must be left out of this purely scientific argument

2) The human soul, similarly as with 1)

3) Realise that given 1) and 2) This argument comes down to whether or not physics allows for random events....

4) This argument is not about whether or not events can be predicted, this is not an operational argument but a theoretical one

5) Collective scientific knowledge currently cannot take a position on this debate, since there are certain barriers and holes which must be overcome (or circumnavigated)

6) Percieving free will does not mean it exists

7) Determinism does not mean 'fate'


Ok, now as i understand it, this debate has converged around quantum physics... It is believed that quarks display trully 'random' behaviour, it is another point of view however that the behaviour is not random, as much as simply impossible to predict (or observe without changing said behaviour)


To help you better understand the issue im raising, i refer you to an example i made in another thread...

Hypothetically if you had a timemachine that could travel backwards in time, you could observe the flight path of a butterfly, or the path of a falling leaf. The question is if you went back and observed it again would it happen in exactly the same way? If this is so, then disregarding the possible existance of god or the soul then all human thought is also determined... This is not to say your entire life is fated, or to say that you could use any of this knowledge to predict anything (allthough theoretically you could, just not practically) It is just to say that every event that has ever happened could only have happened that way....

I think you must say that unless you beleive the human mind can alter quantum mechanical fluctuations, there is no free will.

Thats actually a perfect way of putting it... allthough i dont think that leads us anywhere when it comes to the discussion of this issue since many people will not understand what you mean (since i have had this debate countless times before i understand your point but its not obvious)

Ok, now as i understand it, this debate has converged around quantum physics... It is believed that quarks display trully 'random' behaviour, it is another point of view however that the behaviour is not random, as much as simply impossible to predict (or observe without changing said behaviour)
I believe you are correct: that, viewed objectively, there is no such thing as randomness. That's because randomness is entirely dependent upon an observing consciousness being unable to predict based on what it knows.

To help you better understand the issue im raising, i refer you to an example i made in another thread...

Hypothetically if you had a timemachine that could travel backwards in time, you could observe the flight path of a butterfly, or the path of a falling leaf. The question is if you went back and observed it again would it happen in exactly the same way? If this is so, then disregarding the possible existance of god or the soul then all human thought is also determined... This is not to say your entire life is fated, or to say that you could use any of this knowledge to predict anything (allthough theoretically you could, just not practically) It is just to say that every event that has ever happened could only have happened that way....
Disregarding the impossibility of the scenario... it happened that way; therefore, it will happen that way again if you go back and observe it a second time, a third time, etc. I know nothing about quantum physics, but my response is not based on belief in the idea of a fixed "time line" in which things must happen in a particular way. The (*grinding teeth at the impossibility of it*) scenario itself determines the action of the butterfly or the falling leaf. You said yourself that it happened, and that a consciousness is able to "go back in time" and see it again. It will play out exactly the way it happened.

If you do the scenario again and remove the time machine, then you can create a more reasonable situation in which the butterfly and the leaf will follow more natural maneuvers.

Seems to me this is should be a philosophical/religious debate, not a scientific one. I have always seen debates such as this one in philosophical/religious contexts.

Furthermore, some of your initial points contradict each other (and possibly prove my first point).



1) Since god can niether be proved nor disproved then he must be left out of this purely scientific argument


5) Collective scientific knowledge currently cannot take a position on this debate, since there are certain barriers and holes which must be overcome (or circumnavigated)



Lastly, I dont think you can extend an arguement involving quarks and leaves to cover the lives/existence/choices of humans. Free will (if it exists) can only be applied to sentient beings.