Schroedinger's Cat, many-worlds interpretation and free will

[empther]

Bahman:

Similar to Schroedinger’s cat, namely person is not aware of what is inside free will box. **{ Er, hunh? } ** Free will is a box if we define it as a person ability of making a decision if there are at least two options. {??? Where is this going? } ***This ability is hidden to the person until the decision is made ***hence person awareness is third person :bigyikes: (again). Now assume that an agent has the ability to open the box. What s/he is going to find?

1. Either X or Y, how the person could be free
2. Both X and Y, how the person could make a decision
3. None, there is no free will

As you see the situation is paradoxical.

Something that is paradoxical is self-contradictory. Only a statement can be self-contradictory, for example: “Two men are each taller than the other.”
Something that really exists cannot be a self-contradiction. The free will, a power of the soul, always exists before a decision is made, during the decision, and after.
Not being aware of what decision I will make about which shoe to put on first tomorrow morning doesn’t mean I will not have free will then or that I don’t have free will now.

So your argument is worthless, as always.

 

[Bahman]

It is paradoxical only if you live in Schroedinger’s box. We do not live in that box. You need to read my comments more carefully. Our lives are not paradoxical. We are what we are, human beings who live in a real world, one world. There are no multiverses in which we live in one at one moment and another at another moment. It is invalid to transfer Schroedinger’s box to the reality or our daily lives. I couldn’t care less about the cat.
Linus2nd

I didn’t say that we live inside the box but our decision. Do you agree that our awareness toward our decisions is third person?

 

[Bahman]

We have to remember that ‘random’ can be relative. What appears random to us through experiment and experience may not be random in the universal sense.

A good example of this is experiments done exploring John Bell’s inequality theorem.

Taking entangled particles and measuring the first with regards to ‘spin’ has a clear affect on the properties of the other,.

Although if we confine our observance to only the second particle, its measurements still appears completely random, but it is not.

You mean everything is connected?

Rather than a ‘many worlds’ theory, I prefer to look at one world reality where the conscious observance is written into the laws of physics.

It is interesting to read the physics Nobel prize winner of 1963, Eugene Wigner when he wrote 'I could not formulate the laws (that is quantum laws) without regards to consciousness.

As a computer programmer I see the quantum laws involving observance to have similarities with producing a simulated online world for multiple users.

Any a theory of knowledge of course requires an observer and I agree with you on that.

 

[Bahman]

Something that is paradoxical is self-contradictory. Only a statement can be self-contradictory, for example: “Two men are each taller than the other.”
Something that really exists cannot be a self-contradiction. The free will, a power of the soul, always exists before a decision is made, during the decision, and after.
Not being aware of what decision I will make about which shoe to put on first tomorrow morning doesn’t mean I will not have free will then or that I don’t have free will now.

So your argument is worthless, as always.

I don’t see where you are going with your argument as it is not an argument. Lets stick to word: Do you agree that your awareness from a decision is going to be made is third person or it is first person? In first case you are a normal person like me and in the second case you are God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I didn’t say that we live inside the box but our decision. Do you agree that our awareness toward our decisions is third person?

I have no idea what you mean by " our decision is a third person? "

The fact remains that our attempt to " see " the state of the quanta is the very thing which causes the " randomness. " We have disturbed its natural state. It is the detection apparatus which disturbs its natural state. This does not happen in real life. In real life there is no disturbance to the natural state. So none of this has any application to real life. In other words we do not live under laboratory conditions.

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Linus’s post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahman View Post
I didn’t say that we live inside the box but our decision. Do you agree that our awareness toward our decisions is third person?

I have no idea what you mean by " our decision is a third person? "

I agree with you, Linus.
“our decision is a third person” is completely meaningless.
These non-believers put strings of words together in meaningless ways to confuse people and make it sound like maybe they might be on to something. They aren’t.

I have to hand it to Bahman. He’s a master at the art of confusion. The Harvard Lampoon should start an award for this.

 

[Bahman]

I have no idea what you mean by " our decision is a third person? "

I meant that we have no idea what would be the result of a decision making by intellect prior to the time that the decision is made hence our decision is hidden from our consciousness. This means that your awareness from a decision is third person unless you claim that you have direct access to your intellect.

 

[Bahman]

Linus’s post

I agree with you, Linus.
“our decision is a third person” is completely meaningless.
These non-believers put strings of words together in meaningless ways to confuse people and make it sound like maybe they might be on to something. They aren’t.

I have to hand it to Bahman. He’s a master at the art of confusion. The Harvard Lampoon should start an award for this.

Thanks for award. I would be happier to have a piece of argument.

By the way, you didn’t answer my question: Do you have direct access to your soul when a decision involved or your access is indirect?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I meant that we have no idea what would be the result of a decision making by intellect prior to the time that the decision is made hence our decision is hidden from our consciousness. This means that your awareness from a decision is third person unless you claim that you have direct access to your intellect.

If you don’t think you have direct to your intellect you are very confused. When we think, when we love, when we live, move, and breath, that is our soul in action, it is us in action, we have direct contact with our soul because that is who we are!!! We are men and women composed of body and soul, it is the composit that acts, we are aware of our bodies and our souls.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

If you don’t think you have direct to your intellect you are very confused.
Linus2nd

That is no correct since otherwise everybody would believe that s/he has a soul hence the entity of soul was not that mysterious anymore.

 

[GEddie]

That is no correct since otherwise everybody would believe that s/he has a soul hence the entity of soul was not that mysterious anymore.

Everybody may not agree that they have a soul, because the word ‘soul’ has become a religious buzzword.

Everybody however, unless they are an off-the-end philosopher, agrees that they have a mind. And the mind is what forms decisions, moves the body, etc.

To a Christian, the mind is a process of the soul, living in one’s head.

So yeah, we do have access to our mind/soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

Everybody may not agree that they have a soul, because the word ‘soul’ has become a religious buzzword.

Everybody however, unless they are an off-the-end philosopher, agrees that they have a mind. And the mind is what forms decisions, moves the body, etc.

To a Christian, the mind is a process of the soul, living in one’s head.

So yeah, we do have access to our mind/soul.

ICXC NIKA

People just experience things. The very fact that we can change things with moving our body or even thinking on a subject matter means that we have indirect access to our mind since access means experience of the subject matter and our mind cannot be objective to itself unless you argue that this is possible.

 

[GEddie]

People just experience things. The very fact that we can change things with moving our body or even thinking on a subject matter means that we have indirect access to our mind since access means experience of the subject matter and our mind cannot be objective to itself unless you argue that this is possible.

“We” are our minds, so we do not “access” our minds indirectly.

We are also our bodies, but in a sense, indirectly, because a tenuous biological chain joins mind to body.

When you wiggle your toes, your mind, in your head, uses the spinal cord and leg muscles to make that happen (indirect).

But thinking and knowing are what human minds do (directly).

You are right in saying that the human mind is not objective to itself. We are our minds. We are not objective to ourself.

We are semi-objective to our bodies, at least in adulthood, because we say “my body,” where a child would just say “me.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

“We” are our minds, so we do not “access” our minds indirectly.

We are also our bodies, but in a sense, indirectly, because a tenuous biological chain joins mind to body.

When you wiggle your toes, your mind, in your head, uses the spinal cord and leg muscles to make that happen (indirect).

But thinking and knowing are what human minds do (directly).

You are right in saying that the human mind is not objective to itself. We are our minds. We are not objective to ourself.

We are semi-objective to our bodies, at least in adulthood, because we say “my body,” where a child would just say “me.”

ICXC NIKA

I think you are contradicting yourself in these places.

Direct access by definition needs objectivity hence you cannot have direct access to your mind unless your minds is objective to itself.

 

[GEddie]

I think you are contradicting yourself in these places.

Direct access by definition needs objectivity hence you cannot have direct access to your mind unless your minds is objective to itself.

I think we are tripping over each other’s definitions.

ICXC NIKA

 

[seagal]

I think you are contradicting yourself in these places.

**Direct access by definition needs objectivity **hence you cannot have direct access to your mind unless your minds is objective to itself.

Explain that please. Direct access means (to me anyway) that I can directly access my thoughts and feelings. According to Google search, the definition of objective is

impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, dispassionate, detached, neutral

None of these words apply to my relationship to my own mind.

 

[Bahman]

I think we are tripping over each other’s definitions.
ICXC NIKA

I don’t think so. I think it is our faulty to equate mind as consciousness which leads to endless contradiction. The mind is subconsciousness.

 

[Bahman]

According to Google search, the definition of objective is None of these words apply to my relationship to my own mind.

We have two worlds namely objective world and subjective world, external and internal, formed and formless, physical and mind. What appears to our consciousness whether it is an object, a single thought or feeling is objective since it has a form hence it is external to mind.

Explain that please. Direct access means (to me anyway) that I can directly access my thoughts and feelings.

Thoughts and feeling belongs to objective world and that is why your mind can experience them because they have a form. Feeling has a form since you can distinguish between happiness and sadness, as thought could be clear and confusive, etc.

We cannot have direct access to our mind since direct access requires the ability to experience itself which means that mind should become objective to itself which is logically impossible. Our objective world however is constantly approached by our minds since it can cause changes and that is the only way that our mind could experience itself which is indirect.

 

[seagal]

We have two worlds namely objective world and subjective world, external and internal, formed and formless, physical and mind.

I can’t find another instance where the words objective and subjective are used in this way. This is the common usage:

Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; phenomenal; arising out of or identified by means of one’s awareness.

Objective: existing independent of mind; belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods; expressing or involving the use of facts; derived from sense perception

The words objective and subjective are not synonymous with formed/formless, internal/external.

What appears to our consciousness whether it is an object, a single thought or feeling is objective since it has a form hence it is external to mind.

Thoughts and feeling belongs to objective world and that is why your mind can experience them because they have a form. Feeling has a form since you can distinguish between happiness and sadness, as thought could be clear and confusive, etc.

How can a thought or object that I’m thinking in my mind be external to my mind? It only exists because I’m thinking about it. The word “objective” as you use it here is meaningless.

We cannot have direct access to our mind since direct access requires the ability to experience itself which means that mind should become objective to itself which is logically impossible. Our objective world however is constantly approached by our minds since it can cause changes and that is the only way that our mind could experience itself which is indirect.

Again, your use of objective is meaningless to me, and I would guess anyone else reading this thread.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t think so. I think it is our faulty to equate mind as consciousness which leads to endless contradiction. The mind is subconsciousness.

Maybe for you.

My mind is fully conscious.

ICXC NIKA