ughaibu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:This is a misrepresentation:

ughaibu wrote:What follows from quantum mechanics, without importing any metaphysical biases, is that some human behaviour is neither deterministic nor random and is thus irreducibly unpredictable.

It doesn't follow

I explained how it follows, what didn't you understand about my explanation?

You didn't because you couldn't have constructed an argument about how the unpredictability of human behavior follows from the principles of quantum mechanics. Human neurons and neurotransmitters are immersed in a heat bath at 310 K. Did you explain how quantum fluctuations are significant in a system immersed in such a heat bath? Or did you have some woo explanation that the unpredictability of human behavior is due to something besides neurons and neurotransmitters? It could be, you know, but then you'd have to bring in the quantum mechanics of sociology or something.

ughaibu wrote:I explained how it follows, what didn't you understand about my explanation?

So you say, ughaibu. Is it that you want me to guess what it was you thought was an explanation?

Cito di Pense wrote:

ughaibu wrote:I explained how it follows, what didn't you understand about my explanation?

You didn't because you couldn't have constructed an argument about how the unpredictability of human behavior follows from the principles of quantum mechanics.

Okay, if you didn't recognise that there was an argument, it's no surprise that you didn't understand it.

Cito di Pense wrote:Human neurons and neurotransmitters are immersed in a heat bath at 310 K. Did you explain how quantum fluctuations are significant in a system immersed in such a heat bath? Or did you have some woo explanation that the unpredictability of human behavior is due to something besides neurons and neurotransmitters? It could be, you know, but then you'd have to bring in the quantum mechanics of sociology or something.

If you think any of this has any relevance to the matter, then clearly you haven't any idea of how my argument works.

For my argument, all I appealled to from quantum mechanics is this:

ughaibu wrote:let's take the science seriously, the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic, this means that if time is rewound to the point at which Schrodinger puts the cat in the box, on about half the subsequent evolutions the cat will be dead, when he reopens the box, on the rest it will be alive.

Tell me, am I lying or misrepresenting actual scientific findings by pointing out that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic? Am I lying or misrepresenting anything by spelling out what "irreducibly probabilistic" amounts to?

ughaibu wrote:Tell me, am I lying or misrepresenting actual scientific findings by pointing out that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic? Am I lying or misrepresenting anything by spelling out what "irreducibly probabilistic" amounts to?

You simply don't understand quantum mechanics beyond chanting platitudes like "irreducibly probabilistic". If that were the case, statistical thermodynamics would not have become the success it has been, and its treatment of the moments of statistical distributions would be useless. What's irreducibly probabilistic is that the behavior of individual particles modeled as classical objects (let alone as quantum entities) in ensembles is not a subject of study except in computer simulations and is not scaled up to the level of biological structures containing millions of atoms. If you're asserting that the quantum quirks of a single atom in a single molecule in the heat bath ramp up to the unpredictability of human behavior, you're sadly deluded. Those quirks are washed out by thermal noise in a few tens of nanoseconds. Statistical mechanics in the liquid state is still very difficult, and that difficulty does not add up to the platitude that the irreducibly probabilistic analysis of quantum mechanics is applicable at that scale.

Cito di Pense wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Tell me, am I lying or misrepresenting actual scientific findings by pointing out that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic? Am I lying or misrepresenting anything by spelling out what "irreducibly probabilistic" amounts to?

You simply don't understand quantum mechanics beyond chanting platitudes like "irreducibly probabilistic".

Be clear, are you stating that it is either a lie or a misrepresentation of actual scientific findings to state that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic. Yes or no?

Cito di Pense wrote:If you're asserting that the quantum quirks of a single atom in a single molecule in the heat bath ramp up to the unpredictability of human behavior, you're sadly deluded. Those quirks are washed out by thermal noise in a few tens of nanoseconds.

I won't be replying to any more of these irrelevancies. That you do not understand my argument entails neither that I have lied or have misrepresented anything.

ughaibu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Tell me, am I lying or misrepresenting actual scientific findings by pointing out that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic? Am I lying or misrepresenting anything by spelling out what "irreducibly probabilistic" amounts to?

You simply don't understand quantum mechanics beyond chanting platitudes like "irreducibly probabilistic".

Be clear, are you stating that it is either a lie or a misrepresentation of actual scientific findings to state that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic. Yes or no?

Cito di Pense wrote:If you're asserting that the quantum quirks of a single atom in a single molecule in the heat bath ramp up to the unpredictability of human behavior, you're sadly deluded. Those quirks are washed out by thermal noise in a few tens of nanoseconds.

I won't be replying to any more of these irrelevancies. That you do not understand my argument entails neither that I have lied or have misrepresented anything.

You obviously lack a sufficient understanding of the relevant scope of quantum mechanics in chemistry. It's no surprise that you're chickening out at this point. The irreducibly probabilistic nature of quantum events is irrelevant in large ensembles of particles in the liquid or polyphase state in a heat bath at 310 K. Such quantum fluctuations are hammered to death in nanoseconds or even picoseconds by the power of thermal motions of atoms in bound structures. More relevant to neurotransmission is the timescale of diffusive motion a thousand to a million times longer.

Cito di Pense wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Be clear, are you stating that it is either a lie or a misrepresentation of actual scientific findings to state that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic. Yes or no?

The irreducibly probabilistic nature of quantum events

In short, no, I have neither lied nor misrepresented the science.
Now, as you appear to have nothing relevant to say, good night.

ughaibu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Be clear, are you stating that it is either a lie or a misrepresentation of actual scientific findings to state that the predictions of quantum mechanics are irreducibly probabilistic. Yes or no?

The irreducibly probabilistic nature of quantum events

In short, no, I have neither lied nor misrepresented the science.
Now, as you appear to have nothing relevant to say, good night.

And good night to you, Brave Sir Robin, as you distance yourself from your trail of lies and misrepresentations bred of ignorance rather than mere malice. You can't really do any damage here, so any left-over malice is just going to dissipate, as insignificant fluctuations in a thermal bath tend to do. Your e-folding time is pretty long, this week, but fold you did.

What I know without a doubt is that free will is a ludicrous notion if 'we' essentially are of a physical nature. Therefore, what I know without a doubt is that quantum physics matters not if we have no such nature. In other words, free will isn't an option unless one is open to idealism, which is why I don't waste too much of my time in this particular thread. The only surprise for me is how - given that say 99% of you won't entertain idealism - this thread has gone on for almost 650 pages. I mean, what's there to talk about given the first sentence of this post?

jamest wrote:In other words, free will isn't an option unless one is open to idealism,

Fair enough, but I wouldn't adopt idealism simply in order to obtain free will. That's like opening a bank account with fifty cents in order to claim the incentive of a kitchen mop, a pretty good deal until you look at the time spent making the transaction. The point of those 650 pages, if it is anything, is to see what lengths people will go to in order to defend their cherished beliefs. I don't have a horse in this dreary breeding pen that contains only two mares.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:In other words, free will isn't an option unless one is open to idealism,

Fair enough, but I wouldn't adopt idealism simply in order to obtain free will.

I wouldn't expect you to do so although this thread isn't about how to obtain free will, it's about the possibility that we might have it. Since only idealism allows for that possibility, let's just get a mod to close the thread and use this reason for doing so. I mean, 650 pages to realise that only idealism affords the notion of free will is 650 bridges too far.

jamest wrote:free will isn't an option unless one is open to idealism

According to the PhilPapers survey, idealism is an even more minor position that free will denial: 4.3% versus 12.2% (but bear in mind that the free will denial figures are probably exaggerated, as conspicuous deniers such as G.Strawson and Pereboom don't deny the existence of free will per se, only of free will sufficient for moral responsibility). It follows from this that amongst the relevant authority group, at most 4.3% think that free will requires idealism, in other words, the claim that free will requires idealism is about as implausible as claims get.
So, how do you support this claim?

James doesn’t support his claims, he merely asserts them

scott1328 wrote:James doesn’t support his claims, he merely asserts them

Well. . . .

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:It's a characterization of your posts. They are full of lies and misrepresentations are pushing woo-laden notions of libertarianism.

Go on then, quote and link to the posts, on the last two or three pages, in which I lied or misrepresented scientific findings and in which I pushed any "woo-laden notion".

How about you?

ughaibu wrote:

jamest wrote:free will isn't an option unless one is open to idealism

According to the PhilPapers survey, idealism is an even more minor position that free will denial: 4.3% versus 12.2% (but bear in mind that the free will denial figures are probably exaggerated, as conspicuous deniers such as G.Strawson and Pereboom don't deny the existence of free will per se, only of free will sufficient for moral responsibility). It follows from this that amongst the relevant authority group, at most 4.3% think that free will requires idealism, in other words, the claim that free will requires idealism is about as implausible as claims get.
So, how do you support this claim?

Well, firstly I'd support this claim by shoving a badger up the arse of the owners of PhilPapers, then Strawson and Pereboom - since I have zero respect for 'authority'. Then I'd get back to the business of explaining why anything with a physical ontology cannot have any kind of free will, only the illusion/delusion of having it. Then, in accordance with that I'd explain why only idealism (thus being which is essentially non-physical) can be actually 'free' of physical concerns. And then I'd go and shove another badger up those aforementioned arses, just for the fun of it. I'd then stock my freezer with more badgers in readiness for the bleedin' obvious responses here. And then I'd probably fuck-off for a couple of days, come back, then shove those badgers up various member's arses. Then I'd probably get a formal warning. Then I'd fuck-off for a while. Then rinse and repeat.

scott1328 wrote:James doesn’t support his claims, he merely asserts them

You've never genuinely sought support for anything other than your underwear, so spare me the bullshit.

jamest wrote:

ughaibu wrote:the claim that free will requires idealism is about as implausible as claims get.
So, how do you support this claim?

I'd get back to the business of explaining why anything with a physical ontology cannot have any kind of free will

Go on then, what's your argument?

ughaibu wrote:

jamest wrote:

ughaibu wrote:the claim that free will requires idealism is about as implausible as claims get.
So, how do you support this claim?

I'd get back to the business of explaining why anything with a physical ontology cannot have any kind of free will

Go on then, what's your argument?

Could it start with a definition of free will requiring conscious agents as the only real wills? It might then assert that dualism is untenable so only idealism allows for really-truly essentially conscious mind with nothing else in existence to constrain the will.

James's version doesn't allow for genuinely individual minds so people can't have their own free will. They are puppet characters of One God.

There is a similar possibility of science argument that solipsism makes science impossible which I dare say has as much merit as science requires libertarian free will.

Does that mean that if we want to belive in science we have to assume many-minds idealism and free will?

GrahamH wrote:. . . . which I dare say has as much merit as science requires libertarian free will.

Mind you, you still haven't offered anything resembling a lucid objection to Conway and Kochen, have you?

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:. . . . which I dare say has as much merit as science requires libertarian free will.

Mind you, you still haven't offered anything resembling a lucid objection to Conway and Kochen, have you?

Conway and Kochen are merely asserted to have produced anything requiring a "lucid objection". End of. Nothing will shut up a true believer.

ughaibu wrote:Go on then, what's your argument?

You don't really plan on accepting any arguments here. We are all oh, so unworthy of your credit. You read my stuff on statistical mechanics and fucked off to bother someone else.

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:. . . . which I dare say has as much merit as science requires libertarian free will.

Mind you, you still haven't offered anything resembling a lucid objection to Conway and Kochen, have you?

You are indifferent to it.

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Anyway, you support Conway & Kochen's theory, do you?

I can't see the relevance of this question, but as it goes, I'm pretty much indifferent to it.
Now, this is boring me, have you got an objection to their argument? If not, good night.

Your definition of free will is at odds with Conway / kochen's so you should probably stop referring to it. Be indifferent.