C
Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation
- Status
A
Anselm33
Guest
Although David Bohm was a great physicist, unfortunately his hidden-variable formulation of quantum mechanics has been disproved by experiments violating Bell’s Theorem. Also the Kochen-Specker Theorem shows that hidden variables can not be operative. Indeed, according to some philosophers, this theorem disproves Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
This is not true.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In that case you have failed miserably as a result of your unsubstantiated dogma that persons are **dominated **by physical factors.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then your notion of free will is defective! Do quantum entities have a will? :ehh:
C
Counterpoint
Guest
I have not expressed any such dogma. I have simply argued that any version of free will must either entail strict determinism or some random element. And hitherto, you have not furnished me any version of free will that doesn’t entail one or the other. And you won’t be able to, because no such version exist.Counterpoint:
In that case you have failed miserably as a result of your unsubstantiated dogma that persons are **dominated **by physical factors.
By the way, materialism is not the only deterministic worldview. Both dualism and idealism can also be deterministic. (They can also be indeterministic.)
C
Counterpoint
Guest
Whitehead’s “process metaphysics” holds that all actual entities (or actual occasions) exercise free will. That subatomic particles seem to exhibit some form of mentality has been suggested by some very prominent physicists.
A
Anselm33
Guest
Referring to my statement that the Aspect Experiments concerning Bell’s Theorem disprove hidden variable theories (including Bohm’s).
Contextual local variable theories are also disproved by the Kochen-Specker Theorem. See Simon, Brukner and Zeilinger’s paper
]http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant--ph/0006043.pdf
or better yet read John Bell’s book, “The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”
Are you, perhaps, trying to distinguish between local and non-local hidden variable theories?
Please offer some support for your statement “This is not true”.
Oh??? See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/#7
Contextual local variable theories are also disproved by the Kochen-Specker Theorem. See Simon, Brukner and Zeilinger’s paper
]http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant--ph/0006043.pdf
or better yet read John Bell’s book, “The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”
Are you, perhaps, trying to distinguish between local and non-local hidden variable theories?
Please offer some support for your statement “This is not true”.
A
Anselm33
Guest
Which prominent physicists? Are you referring to a link between QM and consciousness? Are you referring to the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem? Neither require mentality for quantum entities (sub-atomic particles).
C
Counterpoint
Guest
C
Counterpoint
Guest
I furnished you with a quote by Albert Einstein in my previous post to you. Did you not read it?
A
Anselm33
Guest
Here’s the quote you gave of Albert Einstein’s:
“The idea that an electron…by its own free decision chooses the moment and direction in which it wants to eject is intolerable to me. If that is so, I’d rather be a cobbler or a clerk in a gambling casino than a physicist.” - Albert Einstein (source: pg. 574, “Albert Einstein” by Albrecht Fölsing, translated by Ewald Osers)
That does not imbue fundamental particles with mentality, indeed quite the opposite.
A
Anselm33
Guest
You might be interested in a theorem invalidating a whole class of non-local theories…
See A.J. Leggett, “Non-local hidden variable theories and Quantum Mechanics: an Incompatibility Theorem” (Foundations of Physics)
In that article Leggett makes the statement “In my view the point of considering such theories (non-local hidden variable theories) is not so much that they are in themselves a particularly plausible theory of physical reality (emphasis added),but that by investigating their consequences one may obtain a deeper insight into the quantum-mechanical “weirdness” which Bell’s Theorem exposes.”
Leggett’s theorem has been tested experimentally, with the result “that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations.”
By your response to this I’ll see whether you’re interested in learning about physics or would rather be argumentative. If the latter, then I’m out of here.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It’s not often an opponent offers evidence against his own viewpoint. :juggle:
T
tonyrey
Guest
Suggestions by a few prominent **physicists **are a very weak foundation for a **metaphysical conclusion. Their expertise is restricted to one aspect of reality: physical **objects - which are not regarded as morally responsible for their activity.
A
Anselm33
Guest
Thank you Forum Master tonyrey, but I wasn’t really asking as an “opponent”; I am/was curious as to which prominent physicists endowed fundamental particles with mentality. I know of one paper, about 8 to 10 years by a theologian and physicist from the University of Iowa that posited this, based on Jean-Paul Sartre’s phenomenology, but it did not appeal to me scientifically or otherwise.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I didn’t make it clear that the opponent in question is the one who rejects free will.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
That’s what Einstein said in regards to quantum indeterminism. Einstein also characterized quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” (It is a well-known historical fact that Einstein was opposed to quantum mechanics.) To date, the evidence does not support Einstein’s opposition. Quantum mechanics is one of the most validated theories in science. An electron really does appear “by its own free decision” to chose the moment and direction in which it wants to eject. And “spooky actions at a distance” really do appear to happen.
You asked me to furnish you with a prominent physicist who ascribed mentality to a subatomic particle. I have already done this. I provided you with two prominent physicists - Albert Einstein and David Bohm. Both Einstein (implicitly) and Bohm (explicitly) ascribed mentality to subatomic particles.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Did Einstein and Bohm ever define precisely what they meant by “mentality” and to what extent it resembles the mind of a rational person?
C
Counterpoint
Guest
The paper defined “realism” as “a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation.” What constitutes an observation? Does that entail consciousness or some kind of awareness?
By the way, I do not profess to be an expert in physics. And this thread is not concerned with quantum mechanics (at least, not directly). That being said, you were the one who had to be corrected on the implications of the Bell test experiments. It does not invalidate the Bohmian interpretation. Why? Because the Bohmian interpretation is a NONLOCAL interpretation, not a LOCAL one.
- Status