The problem with Evil

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,848
Sad but true indeed. We do give subjective meaning to things. It still doesn't mean that meaning we give isn't governed by determinism. Luckily for me, I subscribe to secular humanism. As such, I can say things like, this is wrong and that is bad or this is good and that shouldn't be allowed as it fits into a world view of sorts. Lest we forget, you cannot get an ought from an is.
Funny how you embrace what isn't real the moment it becomes convenient. This is what I mean about people who say there's no meaning still behaving as if there is meaning, and why I consider arguments about determinism that have been grounded in choice to be BS. The psychology of subordinating subjectivity to objectivity is basically just a naive powergame.

I would argue the opposite, it is people who believe in libertarian free will who need to provide evidence for their position. We either have complete and utter free will, or we don't. If you want to create a scenario or universe where both can exist simultaneously, please provide the evidence for such.
I already did in post #173. Non-locality creates the necessary space to allow our decisions to bring about real changes to the state of the Universe.
 

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
461
Funny how you embrace what isn't real the moment it becomes convenient. This is what I mean about people who say there's no meaning still behaving as if there is meaning, and why I consider arguments about determinism that have been grounded in choice to be BS. The psychology of subordinating subjectivity to objectivity is basically just a naive powergame.


I already did in post #173. Non-locality creates the necessary space to allow our decisions to bring about real changes to the state of the Universe.
To be honest with you. I don't even know how we got to this point. Long thread is long.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,687
Sad but true indeed. We do give subjective meaning to things. It still doesn't mean that meaning we give isn't governed by determinism. Luckily for me, I subscribe to secular humanism. As such, I can say things like, this is wrong and that is bad or this is good and that shouldn't be allowed as it fits into a world view of sorts. Lest we forget, you cannot get an ought from an is.
At least you know you did not come to your views due to reason and logic whereby you considered different views and decided on this particular one.


I would argue the opposite, it is people who believe in libertarian free will who need to provide evidence for their position. We either have complete and utter free will, or we don't. If you want to create a scenario or universe where both can exist simultaneously, please provide the evidence for such.
I think determinists need to demonstrate that the indeterminate nature of quantum physics is false. Quantum physics have pretty much ruined determinism. Good luck.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,115
Okay now I need to say something along the lines of, "no" - I checked into Quantum Gravity, pretty interesting stuff. As for Emergence Theory.... yeah no. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Klee_Irwin
Thanks, we like to think sometimes we can go it alone and gather knowledge, exercise intellect etc.
Then someone comes along and helps you realize that more minds are better.
 

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
461
I think determinists need to demonstrate that the indeterminate nature of quantum physics is false. Quantum physics have pretty much ruined determinism. Good luck.
I'm not entirely sure who would bare the burden of proof in this scenario. You are asserting that quantum physics is completely random. No proof for that. For all we know, it follows strict rules of logic, cause and effect, lots of which are not currently known. The best anyone could do on this matter is to say, "we don't know yet" or, "I don't know".
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,687
I'm not entirely sure who would bare the burden of proof in this scenario. You are asserting that quantum physics is completely random. No proof for that. For all we know, it follows strict rules of logic, cause and effect, lots of which are not currently known. The best anyone could do on this matter is to say, "we don't know yet" or, "I don't know".
Not random. Indeterminate. Difference there. And it destroys determinism.
 

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
461
Have a look at the Stern Gerlach experiment and how it relates to quantum indeterminacy.
In standard quantum theory, the first required element is the collapse of the wave-function. This is the Dirac projection postulate, which John von Neumann called Process 1 in any measurement.

Note that the collapse might not leave a determinate record. If nothing in the environment is macroscopically affected so as to leave an indelible record of the collapse, we can say that no information about the collapse is created. The overwhelming fraction of collapses are of this kind. Moreover, information might actually be destroyed. For example, collisions between atoms or molecules in a gas that erase past information about their paths.

If the collapse occurs when the quantum system is entangled with a macroscopic measurement apparatus, a well-designed apparatus will also "collapse" into a correlated "pointer" state that can be seen by an observer as new information.

This is the second required element - a determinate record of the event. Note this is impossible without an irreversible thermodynamic process that involves: a) the creation of at least one bit of new information (negative entropy) and b) the transfer away from the measuring apparatus of an amount of positive entropy (generally much, much) greater than the information created.

Notice that no conscious observer need be involved. We can generalize this second step to an event in the physical world that was not designed as a measurement apparatus by a physical scientist, but nevertheless leaves an indelible record of the collapse of a quantum state. This might be a highly specific single event, or the macroscopic consequence of billions of atomic-molecular level of events.

Finally, the third required element is that the indelible determinate record is looked at by an observer, presumably conscious, although the consciousness itself has nothing to do with the measurement (despite von Neumann's puzzling about some kind of "psycho-physical parallelism").

These measurements are on a quantum level which means it falls into statistical probability. The statistical probability is the predicted result. Therefore, determinism is upheld.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,848
In standard quantum theory, the first required element is the collapse of the wave-function. This is the Dirac projection postulate, which John von Neumann called Process 1 in any measurement.

Note that the collapse might not leave a determinate record. If nothing in the environment is macroscopically affected so as to leave an indelible record of the collapse, we can say that no information about the collapse is created. The overwhelming fraction of collapses are of this kind. Moreover, information might actually be destroyed. For example, collisions between atoms or molecules in a gas that erase past information about their paths.

If the collapse occurs when the quantum system is entangled with a macroscopic measurement apparatus, a well-designed apparatus will also "collapse" into a correlated "pointer" state that can be seen by an observer as new information.

This is the second required element - a determinate record of the event. Note this is impossible without an irreversible thermodynamic process that involves: a) the creation of at least one bit of new information (negative entropy) and b) the transfer away from the measuring apparatus of an amount of positive entropy (generally much, much) greater than the information created.

Notice that no conscious observer need be involved. We can generalize this second step to an event in the physical world that was not designed as a measurement apparatus by a physical scientist, but nevertheless leaves an indelible record of the collapse of a quantum state. This might be a highly specific single event, or the macroscopic consequence of billions of atomic-molecular level of events.

Finally, the third required element is that the indelible determinate record is looked at by an observer, presumably conscious, although the consciousness itself has nothing to do with the measurement (despite von Neumann's puzzling about some kind of "psycho-physical parallelism").

These measurements are on a quantum level which means it falls into statistical probability. The statistical probability is the predicted result. Therefore, determinism is upheld.
TIL randomness is deterministic.
 

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
461
Right, hence determinism has been falsified.
It's still in the air, it's still an unknown. We need more data. 1 experiment doesn't say enough. Anyway, we've strayed pretty far from the point here. "The problem with evil" - Can we come to the conclusion of this thread yet? It seems to say that there is no definition of evil that everyone can agree with and that evil is subjective to the individual.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,115
It's still in the air, it's still an unknown. We need more data. 1 experiment doesn't say enough. Anyway, we've strayed pretty far from the point here. "The problem with evil" - Can we come to the conclusion of this thread yet? It seems to say that there is no definition of evil that everyone can agree with and that evil is subjective to the individual.
This thread is actually about Free will... or Determinism/non-Determinism. It's not off course.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,848
It's still in the air, it's still an unknown. We need more data. 1 experiment doesn't say enough. Anyway, we've strayed pretty far from the point here. "The problem with evil" - Can we come to the conclusion of this thread yet? It seems to say that there is no definition of evil that everyone can agree with and that evil is subjective to the individual.
As I quoted yesterday:
That huge gap of time and space between coin flip and measurement leaves very little opportunity for some behind-the-scenes flim-flam to affect the experiment's measurement conditions.
How big? The chance that there's still a classical explanation is now one part in one hundred billion billion.
"If some conspiracy is happening to simulate quantum mechanics by a mechanism that is actually classical, that mechanism would have had to begin its operations – somehow knowing exactly when, where, and how this experiment was going to be done – at least 7.8 billion years ago," says the study's co-author Alan Guth.
We have enough data. Your chance of being vindicated is now less than one part in one hundred billion billion.
 

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
461
As I quoted yesterday:
We have enough data. Your chance of being vindicated is now less than one part in one hundred billion billion.
I guess then, we have complete and utter free will. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Free from the constraints of any and all impulses in our brains which have derived from circumstances. Call it a black and white fallacy, call it what you will but I still don't see any way to reconcile the differences. We know when we look at the physical universe it acts in a deterministic way. The moon acts on earth. The Earth acts on the sun and sun on Earth. We know how the galaxies and solar systems are formed. We know how the Earth got here, etc, etc. We trace this cause and effect back to the singularity but you will sit there and insist that things can just "happen" randomly without prior causes. You will then, correct me if I am wrong, try to reconcile this causality by saying that we do indeed have complete free will without appealing to emotion. Without appealing to the "we are actually in control because I can't imagine life in any other way". Okay. You believe that and I'll believe this. Peace.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,848
I guess then, we have complete and utter free will. Free from the constraints of any and all impulses in our brains which have derived from circumstances. Call it a black and white fallacy, call it what you will but I still don't see any way to reconcile the differences. We know when we look at the physical universe it acts in a deterministic way.
No, what we know is that we use all sorts of naive (I don't mean this in the perjorative sense) assumptions in order to interpret the data we're confronted with. We call those intuitions. But the intuitions do not match up with how reality behaves as shown by careful experimentation.

What this means is that we should be hesitant to apply our intuitions to reality and claim that reality really behaves in a certain way when we're the ones who set up the criteria for what proves our assumptions in the first place.

The refutation of determinism is not proof of free will, it merely takes the argument against free will because of determinism off the table. For some reason you don't want to make this distinction.

The moon acts on earth. The Earth acts on the sun and sun on Earth. We know how the galaxies and solar systems are formed. We know how the Earth got here, etc, etc. We trace this cause and effect back to the singularity but you will sit there and insist that things can just "happen" randomly without prior causes. You will then, correct me if I am wrong, try to reconcile this causality by saying that we do indeed have complete free will without appealing to emotion. Without appealing to the "we are actually in control because I can't imagine life in any other way". Okay. You believe that and I'll believe this. Peace.
No, we have models of how all of these things formed. Models are a tool we use to interact with the world, but the map is not the territory.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,687
We know the outcome is going to be random and different every time. It's built into the system being observed.
The outcome is indeterminate (as in the Stern Gerlach experiment that was shared earlier). Not random.

So it pretty much refutes determinism on the level of reactions relevant to brain chemistry. Sure, it does not imply that we have free will. Or to break into to two parts... It does not imply that we have a will, and even if we do, it does not imply it is free.

It merely demonstrates that using determinism as an argument against free will falls flat from the start due to empirical science saying.... get outta here.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
The outcome is indeterminate (as in the Stern Gerlach experiment that was shared earlier). Not random.

So it pretty much refutes determinism on the level of reactions relevant to brain chemistry. Sure, it does not imply that we have free will. Or to break into to two parts... It does not imply that we have a will, and even if we do, it does not imply it is free.

It merely demonstrates that using determinism as an argument against free will falls flat from the start due to empirical science saying.... get outta here.
Well if you can take determinism off the table, then what is left? My thinking is very boolean on this. If we can show determinism to be false then therefore the opposite, freewill is true. Except if we have some other new thing that better explains it.

I'm also not to convinced by the quantum stuff yet. I think we're reading to much into it and it's still early days... (but that might just be me)
 
Top