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

[Pat_Albertson]

Any mental state is a quantum state or physical state in general (because we don’t know if quantum mechanics is the last paradigm).

It is conceivable that that is what a physicist would say, but then they might just say that they don’t know that for sure…

So you believe that time is subjective?

We experience its passage in a subjective sense. We can be idle in a sense that there is “nothing going on”, and yet still be aware of its passage.

I reality there are two main forces, namely randomness and order each can be observed as objective realities hence they do both exist.

Neither randomness nor order is a force. The forces of nature are:

1. ]the strong nuclear force,]the electromagnetic force,]the weak force and,]the gravitational force.
   The electromagnetic and the weak force are now unified though.
   

   They are both potentialities that can manifest themselves in actuality, what can be experienced. In another hand they represent different type of physical states before they could manifest themselves hence there is intellect behind both of them.

   You seem to have jumped to a conclusion here.
   

   In another word, each mental state is a physical state.

   I think it possible that each mental state has some physical correlate, but I do not know whether or not every aspect of all mental states is in a one-to-one correspondence with some physical correlate.

 

[GEddie]

We experience [time’s] passage in a subjective sense. We can be idle in a sense that there is “nothing going on”, and yet still be aware of its passage.

We may not be using our limbs, eyes or even (actively) minds, yet a great deal of timebound activity is going on within our heads and bodies.

Even though it’s your own body, such biological activity is objective, in that it can be biometrically measured (breathing, alpha waves, blood flow, etc.)

And we are aware of same, even if only subconsciously.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

I think it possible that each mental state has some physical correlate, but I do not know whether or not every aspect of all mental states is in a one-to-one correspondence with some physical correlate.

Any mental activity can probably be traced via intracephalic oxygen metabolism and/or entropy burnoff.

We just don’t have the scanners to map that activity in the closed human head. Yet.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What we know as classical regime is only an approximation of quantum state. In reality each mental state also is a quantum state or physical state in general since it represents an objective reality, experienced by the intellect. So the mental thought experiment is very serious since it shows a serious paradox that can appear in mind as well.

Nonesense, we don’t live in a subatomic world, we live in a macroscopic world. Besides, only radio active elements behave as you have described. You have left out all the other elements which are not radio active, which are ontologically stable.

Take a box just like Schroeder and instead of putting in a hunk of uranium put in a hunk of coal. Now your " uncertaintly " disappears.

Linus2dn

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What do you mean with the behavior?

You incorrectly assume ( Schroedinger, et al. as well ) that what appears random behaviou to you is actually random. You assume it because you can not " see " the cause for this behavior. That is an incorrect conclusion, it is based on a false assumption.

The correct response should be, " we just don’t know what the causal bases is for such behavior. But we are sure there is a causal basis." Why, because everything in the universe has a cause, all we have to do is find it.

Linus2nd

 

[Pat_Albertson]

We may not be using our limbs, eyes or even (actively) minds, yet a great deal of timebound activity is going on within our heads and bodies.

Even though it’s your own body, such biological activity is objective, in that it can be biometrically measured (breathing, alpha waves, blood flow, etc.)

And we are aware of same, even if only subconsciously.

ICXC NIKA

Yes, I was thinking of that, but I wanted to leave it open because we may also measure time via our brain/mind’s own activity.

Any mental activity can probably be traced via intracephalic oxygen metabolism and/or entropy burnoff.

We just don’t have the scanners to map that activity in the closed human head. Yet.

ICXC NIKA

I’m glad you left the word “probably” in there, and that you used “mental activity” instead of thoughts. Well, to me “mental activity” is a somewhat macroscopic crude description for what goes on when we think. I am not at all sure everything we think always has to have a detectable physical correlate.

I would not be particularly surprised if that is the case, but I would not assert it at this point.

Note the italicized areas: I just did a bit of editing.

 

[Bahman]

It is conceivable that that is what a physicist would say, but then they might just say that they don’t know that for sure…

There are two main realms, physical and mind, objective and subjective, exterior and interior. What is experienced, whether it is an object, feeling or thought is a mental state and belong to exterior since it could be perceived hence it is physical.

We experience its passage in a subjective sense. We can be idle in a sense that there is “nothing going on”, and yet still be aware of its passage.

What we experience is changes and not time.

Neither randomness nor order is a force. The forces of nature are:

1. 
   *]the strong nuclear force,
   *]the electromagnetic force,
   *]the weak force and,
   *]the gravitational force.
   
   The electromagnetic and the weak force are now unified though.

1. 
   That I am aware of. There is a question however, whether randomness and order are manifestation of these forces or they are something deeper. The quantum field theory which explain the nature of these forces is probabilistic theory, in another word random, with the steady state solution as order phase.
   

   You seem to have jumped to a conclusion here.I think it possible that each mental state has some physical correlate, but I do not know whether or not every aspect of all mental states is in a one-to-one correspondence with some physical correlate.

   What is your definition of intellect?

 

[Bahman]

Nonesense, we don’t live in a subatomic world, we live in a macroscopic world.

I am aware of what I am saying. Classical mechanics is just a simple limit of quantum mechanics. You can read more here. So we are living in subatomic world since they dictate our life and that is why we are becoming old.

Besides, only radio active elements behave as you have described. You have left out all the other elements which are not radio active, which are ontologically stable.

Take a box just like Schroeder and instead of putting in a hunk of uranium put in a hunk of coal. Now your " uncertaintly " disappears.
Linus2dn

I don’t understand what do you want to conclude. To prove that there is a problem in a framework one has to provide a paradox.

 

[Bahman]

You incorrectly assume ( Schroedinger, et al. as well ) that what appears random behaviou to you is actually random. You assume it because you can not " see " the cause for this behavior. That is an incorrect conclusion, it is based on a false assumption.

The correct response should be, " we just don’t know what the causal bases is for such behavior. But we are sure there is a causal basis." Why, because everything in the universe has a cause, all we have to do is find it.
Linus2nd

A single unstable atom is an isolated system hence nothing can cause that it decays hence this phenomena either is random or it is based on a behavior. We had a long discussion on this topic that I can summarize it in one simple question, how an insentient atom could cause anything such as killing an alive cat?

 

[GEddie]

Yes, I was thinking of that, but I wanted to leave it open because we may also measure time via our brain/mind’s own activity.

There’s a wee bit of a difference, there.

The brain is physical; the mind is not.

There are measurable, objective timebound processes going on in our heads, just as in our larger bodies (blood flow, oxygen chemistry, entropy burnoff, etc).

These are probably better clocks than breathing and pulse rate, etc.

The processes of our mind, per se, are subjective and may or may not map onto the bodily head clock. Dreaming is an example; there seems to be time in dreams, but it may be slowed, speeded, stopped, or even reversed relative to the body’s time.

I’m glad you left the word “probably” in there, and that you used “mental activity” instead of thoughts. Well, to me “mental activity” is a somewhat macroscopic crude description for what goes on when we think. I am not at all sure everything we think always has to have a detectable physical correlate.

To me, mental activity is a huge basket of cephalic action, of which “thinking” is only a small part. Dreams, daydreams, intuitions, perceptions, sensations, images, body-movement commands and memory all go into mental activity.

No doubt, conscious thought would require physical processing within the head, which could be scanned if we had the technology. But it would be hard to separate that processing from everything else the brain does in operating our senses and bodies.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am aware of what I am saying. Classical mechanics is just a simple limit of quantum mechanics. You can read more here. So we are living in subatomic world since they dictate our life and that is why we are becoming old.]/QUOTE]

We do not live in Schroedinger’s box. Our lives are not controlled by " random " events, Certainly we use devices which employ radio active elements. These are not controlling factors of our lives, we can and many people do live without them. And prior to the middle of the 20th century, we all lived without them…

I don’t understand what do you want to conclude. To prove that there is a problem in a framework one has to provide a paradox.

What I am complaining about is the interpretation you and others have placed on quantum mechanics. The interpretation is wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A single unstable atom is an isolated system hence nothing can cause that it decays hence this phenomena either is random or it is based on a behavior. We had a long discussion on this topic that I can summarize it in one simple question, how an insentient atom could cause anything such as killing an alive cat?

The following, compliments of Richa:

Originally Posted by Richca
Hi Robert,

It is written “Indeed, she [Wisdom] spans the world from end to end mightily
and governs all things well” (Wisdom 8:1).

And “For from him and through him and for him are all things” (Romans 11:36).

And the CCC says “And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him” (#304).

And “The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes” (CCC#308).

Now every seemingly chance event in the world has a cause, and all particular, proximate or secondary causes are reduced to the Universal or First Cause which is God. Consequently, nothing happens in the world by chance as if some event in the world could take place without God’s knowledge and will. For God’s knowledge extends as far as His causality extends and His causality extends to all being in whatever mode or manner of being. Thus St Thomas Aquinas says “Things are said to be fortuitous as regards some particular cause from the order of which they escape. But as to the order of divine providence, nothing in the world happens by chance as Augustine declares” (ST I, Q. 103, Art. 7.)

Therefore there is no " randomness, " all is directed by the hand of God, either indirectly through secondary causes or directly by his hand. From the fact we cannot find the secondary cause is not proof that the " event " is uncaused or " random. " The problelm is that there appears to be a limit to our technology, or perhaps our understanding.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

What I am complaining about is the interpretation you and others have placed on quantum mechanics. The interpretation is wrong.
Linus2nd

The Schroedinger’s cat obviously shows that something is wrong because the situation is paradoxical so one has to use other interpretation to resolve the paradox. Many-worlds interpretation is one of the interpretation that resolve the problem.

This situation is however very similar to when we want to make a decision about two options. Two options are equivalent to two metal states that we are experience it. This mental states however are objective/external to intellect since they could be experience hence they are physical. By physical I meant anything which is opposed to intellect.

Now we have a person with two mental states X (commit suicide) and Y (stay alive). The person is not aware of decision prior to the time at which decision is made hence his/her awareness from the situation is third person. Similar to Schroedinger’s cat, namely person is not aware of what is inside free will box. Free will is a box if we define it as a person ability of making a decision if there are at least two options. This ability is hidden to the person until the decision is made hence person awareness is third person (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.

 

[empther]

So… Bahman.

You’re still trying to reduce free will to quantum mechanics, hunh?

The folly in your arguments is an embarrassment to all. :doh2:

 

[Pat_Albertson]

There are two main realms, physical and mind, objective and subjective, exterior and interior. What is experienced, whether it is an object, feeling or thought is a mental state and belong to exterior since it could be perceived hence it is physical.

What we experience is changes and not time.

That I am aware of. There is a question however, whether randomness and order are manifestation of these forces or they are something deeper. The quantum field theory which explain the nature of these forces is probabilistic theory, in another word random, with the steady state solution as order phase.

What is your definition of intellect?

There’s a wee bit of a difference, there.

The brain is physical; the mind is not.

There are measurable, objective timebound processes going on in our heads, just as in our larger bodies (blood flow, oxygen chemistry, entropy burnoff, etc).

These are probably better clocks than breathing and pulse rate, etc.

The processes of our mind, per se, are subjective and may or may not map onto the bodily head clock. Dreaming is an example; there seems to be time in dreams, but it may be slowed, speeded, stopped, or even reversed relative to the body’s time.

To me, mental activity is a huge basket of cephalic action, of which “thinking” is only a small part. Dreams, daydreams, intuitions, perceptions, sensations, images, body-movement commands and memory all go into mental activity.

No doubt, conscious thought would require physical processing within the head, which could be scanned if we had the technology. But it would be hard to separate that processing from everything else the brain does in operating our senses and bodies.

ICXC NIKA

Thank you both for your answers. I’m afraid I’m going to have to give up on this for right now as I have severe dental pain and I’m going to have to concentrate on getting help for that now.

To be very brief, I don’t have a definition for intellect. I would just take consciousness as a primitive base phenomenon.

As for mind, I sometimes wonder if extra-physical communication might take place with an immortal soul via thermal fluctuations in electrolyte concentrations near the ends of our neurons in our brains. That would render the soul undetectable, because the fluctuations could go any which way, and yet still allow an overall message to get into our brains.

I don’t have anything more coherent than that right now as I am in a great deal of pain and have not had much sleep.

 

[Bahman]

So… Bahman.

You’re still trying to reduce free will to quantum mechanics, hunh?

The folly in your arguments is an embarrassment to all. :doh2:

I am not assuming so. Where did I say so? I believe in in intellect which is not equal to quantum mechanics. All I am saying is that definition of free will is paradoxical, Period.

 

[inocente]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to give up on this for right now as I have severe dental pain and I’m going to have to concentrate on getting help for that now.

Go get help, go go go!

 

[abucs]

There is a question however, whether randomness and order are manifestation of these forces or they are something deeper. The quantum field theory which explain the nature of these forces is probabilistic theory, in another word random, with the steady state solution as order phase.

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.

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.

 

[GEddie]

Thank you both for your answers. I’m afraid I’m going to have to give up on this for right now as I have severe dental pain and I’m going to have to concentrate on getting help for that now.

My sympathies on your somatic difficulties.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Schroedinger’s cat obviously shows that something is wrong because the situation is paradoxical so one has to use other interpretation to resolve the paradox. Many-worlds interpretation is one of the interpretation that resolve the problem.

This situation is however very similar to when we want to make a decision about two options. Two options are equivalent to two metal states that we are experience it. This mental states however are objective/external to intellect since they could be experience hence they are physical. By physical I meant anything which is opposed to intellect.

Now we have a person with two mental states X (commit suicide) and Y (stay alive). The person is not aware of decision prior to the time at which decision is made hence his/her awareness from the situation is third person. Similar to Schroedinger’s cat, namely person is not aware of what is inside free will box. Free will is a box if we define it as a person ability of making a decision if there are at least two options. This ability is hidden to the person until the decision is made hence person awareness is third person (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.

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