Can we be intellectually honest and believe in the freedom of man?

[STT]

Are you implying that the Delayed Choice Experiment demonstrates that the particle has free will? If so, then why do particles act probabilistically when there’s a large enough sample size?

That is a very good question. One of the situations that free comes to play is when the choices are equally liked. In this case, the decision seems to be random from the third person point of view because there is no preference in any option. There is however the element of wanting in the first person point of view, so the decision is not random intrinsically.

If you’re not implying that the particle has free will, then how does the Delayed Choice Experiment explain why the particle goes through one slit rather than the other, when the probabilities are exactly the same?

No, I don’t mean that.

And can you give an example of a situation in which a person has to make a choice between two options, in which neither of those options is preferential to the other. I don’t believe that such a situation exists. But perhaps I’m wrong.

I have been in such a situation a lot. Think of a situation that you go to an ice cream shop. You like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream equally. There is this period of time that you think of both options but you cannot choose based on preference. That is the moment that free will comes to play and help you to pick up one of the ice creams. I can even put myself in a mental situation to use free will as I wish. Should I write to you more? Let’s decide.

 

[STT]

If there is no reason for one choice over another then the choice is random. Which is not compatible with free will. If there are aspects of any given situation that suggest one choice over another then it could be said that those aspects determine the choice.

The decision is random from third person point of view. There is the element of wanting from first person point of view. So the decision is not intrinsicaly random but it seems random.

 

[itsjustme]

That is a very good question. One of the situations that free comes to play is when the choices are equally liked. In this case, the decision seems to be random from the third person point of view because there is no preference in any option. There is however the element of wanting in the first person point of view, so the decision is not random intrinsically.

But if I run the double slit experiment, and I record the results over a large enough sample size, I’ll get a predictable pattern. And if I do this over, and over, and over again, then I’ll always get the same pattern. And it would seem logical to assume that to get a predictable pattern, you must have a predictable cause.

However, free will, would seem by it’s very definition, not to be predictable. Therefore, how can it produce a predictable pattern, over, and over, and over again?

It would seem to me, that in such a case, what seems to be the result of free will, actually isn’t. Rather, it’s the result of a consistent and predictable cause.

I have been in such a situation a lot. Think of a situation that you go to an ice cream shop. You like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream equally. There is this period of time that you think of both options but you cannot choose based on preference. That is the moment that free will comes to play and help you to pick up one of the ice creams. I can even put myself in a mental situation to use free will as I wish.

I would argue that there will always be underlying conditions, no matter how subtle, that will determine the outcome of your choice, and if there aren’t any such conditions, then the choice will be random, and your conscious mind will simply misconstrue it as free will.

However, I don’t think that either of us can prove our case, so we’re each free to interpret the evidence as we see fit. You attributing that choice to free will, and me not really being convinced.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

True. It was prompted by pertinent events.

I am going to have to remember this technique. Just keep repeating gratuitous assertions with a straight face.

Every single choice you make is dependent upon previous conditions. That’s idiomatic. You don’t operate in a vacuum. There will be reasons why you make one choice over another. And one of the choices that you make may well be to make no decision on any given matter. That the conditions that would have persuaded you one way or the other are perfectly balanced.

Rather than saying ‘that’s a gratuitous assertion’ perhaps you could spend a post or two explaining why that is not the case. Or you can use your newly learnt technique and simply repeat your comment.

 

[STT]

But if I run the double slit experiment, and I record the results over a large enough sample size, I’ll get a predictable pattern. And if I do this over, and over, and over again, then I’ll always get the same pattern. And it would seem logical to assume that to get a predictable pattern, you must have a predictable cause.

However, free will, would seem by it’s very definition, not to be predictable. Therefore, how can it produce a predictable pattern, over, and over, and over again?

It would seem to me, that in such a case, what seems to be the result of free will, actually isn’t. Rather, it’s the result of a consistent and predictable cause.

I think you are talking about interefreence pattern. Interefreence pattern can be obtained from Newton equation when particle experience quantum force. So we have two things in here: 1) Freedom in choosing one of slit and 2) Motion of each particle under quantum force.

I would argue that there will always be underlying conditions, no matter how subtle, that will determine the outcome of your choice, and if there aren’t any such conditions, then the choice will be random, and your conscious mind will simply misconstrue it as free will.

Have you ever been in a situation when you are uncertain about the outcome of your decision? A mechaincal system halts when it cannot forcast future and find optimal solution for its motion. A mechaincal system also halts when it has to choose one option among two options which have equal weight.

 

[EndTimes]

Every single choice you make is dependent upon previous conditions.

No.

Untrue… . Any decision one makes can connect with very current conditions

Such as those which were the result of mistake, substance abuse, Yes/No random generators, whimsey, Acute Emotional Distress or even from the Guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, et cet

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Every single choice you make is dependent upon previous conditions.

No.

Untrue… . Any decision one makes can connect with very current conditions

Such as those which were the result of mistake, substance abuse, Yes/No random generators, whimsey, Acute Emotional Distress or even from the Guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, et cet

I’d have assumed that current conditions would have been a given. But ok…

‘Every single choice you make is dependent upon current AND previous conditions’.

 

[EndTimes]

‘Every single choice you make is dependent upon current AND previous conditions’.

Yes… Such as those which were the result of mistake, substance abuse, Yes/No random generators, whimsy, Acute Emotional Distress or even from the Guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, et cet…

And… Some Actions are not choice - such as those which are involuntary / instinctual …

And our Choices are free.

Some Choices we make - can easily be argued to have just as easily gone the other way…

And Choices we make - and they’re still Free - become more and more aligned with say, for instance, God’s Will … which when we make them - we’re still consciously aware that the potential to go against God’s Will - remains…

_

 

[lelinator]

And… Some Actions are not choice - such as those which are involuntary / instinctual …

And our Choices are free.

Here, let me fix this for you.

And… ALL Actions are not the product of FREE WILL choices - such as those which are involuntary / instinctual …

And our Choices are NOT free.

Now your task is to prove which of those two sets of premises are actually correct.

Good luck.

 

[EndTimes]

And… Some Actions are not choice - such as those which are involuntary / instinctual …

And our Choices are free.

No… I don’t need luck… And you’ve not fixed anything, mr. non-taskmaster…

Nor have you disproved anything with that well-known side-stepping False Argument…

Like it or not - Man has Free Will - which exists without any need to “PROVE IT!”

 

[lelinator]

No… I don’t need luck… And you’ve not fixed anything, mr. non-taskmaster…

Nor have you disproved anything with that well-known side-stepping False Argument…

Like it or not - Man has Free Will - which exists without any need to “PROVE IT!”

Wow, what a brilliant rebuttal…"I don’t need to “PROVE IT!”

No disputing that one…I give in…you win.

I bow to your superior intellect.

 

[EndTimes]

Wow, what a brilliant rebuttal…"I don’t need to “PROVE IT!”

No disputing that one…I give in…you win.

I bow to your superior intellect.

No applause - just toss money…

The waste of precious time - PROVE IT! gambit - is going the way of the horse…

 

[lelinator]

The waste of precious time - PROVE IT! gambit - is going the way of the horse…

Well then I’m perfectly free to make the opposing assertion…that there’s no such thing as free will. And you have no legitimate reason for asking me to prove it.

So you’re right on one thing…your whole argument was just a complete waste of time.

 

[EndTimes]

Well then I’m perfectly free to make the opposing assertion…

that there’s no such thing as free will.

Of course… Be cause … You’re perfectly free!

Yet even the great you - cannot prove that…

So, I’ll never bother to demand “Prove It!” from you…

Which evidences - yet not prove - that the Prove It gambit resembles stalement.

And stalement … is well, rather stale once realized - aka time to move on, eh?

_

 

[lelinator]

And stalement … is well, rather stale once realized - aka time to move on, eh?

Amen, and yet I can’t help but think that this won’t actually be your last words on the subject.

But I can hope.

 

[EndTimes]

Amen, and yet I can’t help but think that this won’t actually be your last words on the subject.

But I can hope.

Ah… That side-stepping shtick? or is it gambit? , eh?

Not … really Hope, per se - rather. wishful thinkings on your part; think ye not?

See! I told you - no…knew … that you would respond… !

 

[lelinator]

Ah… That shtick, eh?

Not … reallly Hope, per se - rather. wishful thinkings on your part; think ye not?

See! I told you you would respond… !

I knew I couldn’t be that lucky. So go ahead, continue to regale us with your brilliance. I’m sure that we’re all in awe.

This has been about all the Bradskii snarkiness that I can muster.

 

[EndTimes]

I knew I couldn’t be that lucky. So go ahead, continue to regale us with your brilliance. I’m sure that we’re all in awe.

That comes across as false modesty to me. Happens often when one’s sore after losing…

 

[lelinator]

That comes across as false modesty to me. Happens often when one’s sore after losing…

No modesty intended, just Bradskii snarkiness. RIP

A forum without Bradskii snarkiness is just cruel.

 

[tafan2]

It seems rather a valid point. We all experience free will. You, and others, seem to say what we experience is nothing more than an illusion created by our own brain. Since you claim something that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be real, is not real at all, the burden of proof should be in you.

If I look out my window and see the ocean, I can assume the ocean is there. If you claim there is no such thing as an ocean, you really need to prove your point, not me.