Keep It Real wrote:Spooky quantum mechanics therefore no determinism smells, looks, feels and generally marches around like bullshit.

That sentence is so badly punctuated that I do'n't know for sure what it means! Please rephrase it in an intelligible way.

DrWho wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Spooky quantum mechanics therefore no determinism smells, looks, feels and generally marches around like bullshit.

Not being able to find a cause is treated as evidence that there is no such thing - even though it is assumed and useful in all non-QM science.

Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that. In QM realms, it's entirely meaningless to talk of such things as 'cause'. That it's useful in classical science is neither here nor there, not least because of the number of times QM has screwed our puny intuitions over.

hackenslash wrote:

DrWho wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Spooky quantum mechanics therefore no determinism smells, looks, feels and generally marches around like bullshit.

Not being able to find a cause is treated as evidence that there is no such thing - even though it is assumed and useful in all non-QM science.

Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that. In QM realms, it's entirely meaningless to talk of such things as 'cause'. That it's useful in classical science is neither here nor there, not least because of the number of times QM has screwed our puny intuitions over.

I take it that you have some kind of ESP, by wich you have worked out what the unpunctuated part of KIR's post actually means. To me, it is gibberish - a classic case in which different added puncuations create competely different meanings.
Eg: 1. Spooky QM, (therefore no determinism) smells, ... like bullshit.
2. Spooky QM, therefore no, determinism smells, ... like bullshit.

DavidMcC wrote:I take it that you have some kind of ESP, by wich you have worked out what the unpunctuated part of KIR's post actually means.

Hackenslash replied to a post by DrWho.

ughaibu wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I take it that you have some kind of ESP, by wich you have worked out what the unpunctuated part of KIR's post actually means.

Hackenslash replied to a post by DrWho.

And Dr.Who assumed, that when somebody makes an unparsable statement, it must be in support of his position. Hulk too angry at QM for grammatic...

susu.exp wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I take it that you have some kind of ESP, by wich you have worked out what the unpunctuated part of KIR's post actually means.

Hackenslash replied to a post by DrWho.

And Dr.Who assumed, that when somebody makes an unparsable statement, it must be in support of his position. Hulk too angry at QM for grammatic...

R-i-i-g-h-t!

Fuck you morons, if the question should be addressed to DrWho, address it to that poster.

The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will?

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will? :ask:

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will?

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

Thank you, too bad you haven't figured out the FUA yet.

scott1328 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will?

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

Thank you, too bad you haven't figured out the FUA yet.

I think the light from a distant star made him do it. I can't blame him for that.

scott1328 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will? :ask:

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

Thank you, too bad you haven't figured out the FUA yet.

Of course I've figured out the FUA. Avoiding being banned is not my highest priority.

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will?

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

How long is your next vacation going to be for?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will? :ask:

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

How long is your next vacation going to be for?

How long is your present string of vacuous posts going to continue?

ughaibu wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The question is: would an omniscient being have known that outburst was coming, and if so, should Ughaibu be held responsible for violating the FUA of his own free will?

Nice to see that you've got the equivalence of determinism and omniscience sorted.

How long is your next vacation going to be for?

How long is your present string of vacuous posts going to continue?

I'm hoping to get finished by the time you get bounced then rest up while you are gone. That's why I'm wondering.

I'm fairly ignorant on these matters, but could those putting forward the stochastic side of the argument explain briefly how these principles would have an impact on the OP? I can comprehend the notion that QM does not work in a deterministic way, but I find it hard to get my head around how that exactly affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being?

My point is; does a stochastic view bring 'free will' anymore into the equation than a deterministic one>

Mr 1 wrote:I'm fairly ignorant on these matters, but could those putting forward the stochastic side of the argument explain briefly how these principles would have an impact on the OP? I can comprehend the notion that QM does not work in a deterministic way, but I find it hard to get my head around how that exactly affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being?

My point is; does a stochastic view bring 'free will' anymore into the equation than a deterministic one>

A good question! AFAIK, nobody knows! I surmise that the probabilitic nature of some events at the molecular level in neurons create the possibility of otherwise impossible generation of random signals that don't come from the background of neighbouring neural activity.

DavidMcC wrote:
A good question! AFAIK, nobody knows! I surmise that the probabilitic nature of some events at the molecular level in neurons create the possibility of otherwise impossible generation of random signals that don't come from the background of neighbouring neural activity.

Thanks for that.

Would it be fair to say then that this whole question of QM making the universe stochastic rather than deterministic is actually rather a moot point in regards to the OP? Either people are only influenced deterministically through their environment, genetic influences, etc, or they're influenced by those things as well as stochastic activity in neurons (which presumably then have a deterministic chain affect on the person's actions anyway), but either way it doesn't seem to make a difference in regards to the question of free will and personal responsibility for actions?

Mr 1 wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
A good question! AFAIK, nobody knows! I surmise that the probabilitic nature of some events at the molecular level in neurons create the possibility of otherwise impossible generation of random signals that don't come from the background of neighbouring neural activity.

Thanks for that.

Would it be fair to say then that this whole question of QM making the universe stochastic rather than deterministic is actually rather a moot point in regards to the OP? Either people are only influenced deterministically through their environment, genetic influences, etc, or they're influenced by those things as well as stochastic activity in neurons (which presumably then have a deterministic chain affect on the person's actions anyway), but either way it doesn't seem to make a difference in regards to the question of free will and personal responsibility for actions?

Well, this isn't about determinism and stochasticity nearly as much as it is about positivism and the hope that we can establish answers to ill-formed questions. I mean, sure, you can tell us how important it is to you whether or not it's determinism or stochasticity in the either-or of binarism. Cry me a river.