Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi John, As far as anthropocentricity, I think that it is escapable only through the anthropocentric notion that we can de-anthropocentricize our perspective. The world has limitlessness, but it also has innumerable limits. Our experiences, ideas, logic, etc are limited by the perception and cognition of the human nervous system, yet our faculties are able to connect us with what convincingly appears to be an external world in which we participate as agents on an individual level. To explain that, I propose that our experience is seamlessly integrated fact and fiction, transparent and solipsistic. Our wiring gives us the best transparency it can within the constraints of what is physically is, but it must also deliver the signature qualities of human awareness in it's every subjective function. Free will is part of that software package, but if we go looking for it in that software's native 'hardware analyzer', we're not going to see anything because that viewer is only a command line text editor. Nothing looks like it has free will when you use that. On Jul 2, 10:52 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Deqr Craig, it makes a lot of sense what you expressed in (too many?) words. May I add some more? In general you take most of our 'human' concepts as final, fixed, defined FACTS (?) and look at the world through them. Such anthropocentric position denigrates the limitlessness of the world. There are innumerable aspects we did not (yet?) meet and so omit their influence on our thinking, behavior, emotions, events, whatever. Our 'mind' (undefined) is part of the totality (unlimited complexity) and so whatever we 'feel' as our own decision is a product of the combined influences we receive - including the input of our mental built. (That includes the felling of a falsifiability as well). In our 'ways' we may have choices and that adds to our 'free' feeling. An interesting idea for a singularity to have no space and time, the base-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the (physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take important for (my term) singularity. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism. They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective topologies. What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will, illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense of teleology were there not such a possibility already inherent in the mechanics themselves. Not only would it be superfluous and counterproductive from an efficiency standpoint, but there really is no aspect of physics or biochemistry which could serve as a toolbox for creating some kind of simulation of participation and agency. You can make a machine seem like it has free will, but unless the machine feels like it has free will - feels the risks of consequences of it's words and actions to it's own survival - feels it's own survival with visceral, overwhelming significance, then there is only the reflection of our own free will. When I look at another human being who is similar to myself, I subconsciously qualify their agency with a shared sense of volition. Someone much older or younger, from a radically different culture, even someone with different physical characteristics are presented with a narrower bandwidth of free will to me. I have to consciously fight the default prejudice that steers me into stereotypical associations, otherwise I tend to think that what I see of a person and what I assume about them based on their appearance is what is influencing their behavior. I think This is how children behave., but I can still realize that any individual child has some capacity to deviate from my generic expectations. The closer I get to a person, the more that I know them, the deeper the subjective connection and the higher quality of individuality I can resolve in my perception of them, their life, etc. Take that interpersonal phenomenon of prejudice and magnify it exponentially to other species of animal, biology, and finally physical
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi, Craig (and I still would appreciate your signing the end of your post, as several of us list-members do - for easier reading) you sound like e thinking 'mind' (what is mind?) - with limitations of course (as you implied). *Wiring?* I changed the fundamental 'wiring' of my mental pattern (belief system?) several times - maybe every 20-30 years or so and still 'feel' the same solipsistic self. I think our nervous system is tissue-related, part of the physical world equipment while our mentality grows in unrestricted domains over the millennia. I believe we are more than 'nerves'. I consider the brain a TOOL we use in our mentality of which science knows precious little. I don't find a 'software package' applicable, just as the 250years ago used 'steam engine' and the electric drive of the 20th c. became obsolete. Free will was very effective in the hands of religious despots to make the faithful obedient for fear of punishment thereafter. Without such there would be hell, greed, brutality, etc. - a reason why 'uncle Lenin' reneged on announcing his communistic society - the heavens of happiness - before that new type of humans (the Communist Man) can be developed - described in religious scripts as 'angels'. His merciful death prevented him to see all that vanish. It is comforting to sit in anthropocentric lukewarmness, it is time to do more. And we can. The model of the so far acquired knowledge base is expanding, yet we think within. OK, but that does not have to restrict our potentials. Happy 4th of July John On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Hi John, As far as anthropocentricity, I think that it is escapable only through the anthropocentric notion that we can de-anthropocentricize our perspective. The world has limitlessness, but it also has innumerable limits. Our experiences, ideas, logic, etc are limited by the perception and cognition of the human nervous system, yet our faculties are able to connect us with what convincingly appears to be an external world in which we participate as agents on an individual level. To explain that, I propose that our experience is seamlessly integrated fact and fiction, transparent and solipsistic. Our wiring gives us the best transparency it can within the constraints of what is physically is, but it must also deliver the signature qualities of human awareness in it's every subjective function. Free will is part of that software package, but if we go looking for it in that software's native 'hardware analyzer', we're not going to see anything because that viewer is only a command line text editor. Nothing looks like it has free will when you use that. On Jul 2, 10:52 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Deqr Craig, it makes a lot of sense what you expressed in (too many?) words. May I add some more? In general you take most of our 'human' concepts as final, fixed, defined FACTS (?) and look at the world through them. Such anthropocentric position denigrates the limitlessness of the world. There are innumerable aspects we did not (yet?) meet and so omit their influence on our thinking, behavior, emotions, events, whatever. Our 'mind' (undefined) is part of the totality (unlimited complexity) and so whatever we 'feel' as our own decision is a product of the combined influences we receive - including the input of our mental built. (That includes the felling of a falsifiability as well). In our 'ways' we may have choices and that adds to our 'free' feeling. An interesting idea for a singularity to have no space and time, the base-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the (physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take important for (my term) singularity. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism. They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective topologies. What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will, illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense of teleology were there
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism. They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective topologies. What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will, illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense of teleology were there not such a possibility already inherent in the mechanics themselves. Not only would it be superfluous and counterproductive from an efficiency standpoint, but there really is no aspect of physics or biochemistry which could serve as a toolbox for creating some kind of simulation of participation and agency. You can make a machine seem like it has free will, but unless the machine feels like it has free will - feels the risks of consequences of it's words and actions to it's own survival - feels it's own survival with visceral, overwhelming significance, then there is only the reflection of our own free will. When I look at another human being who is similar to myself, I subconsciously qualify their agency with a shared sense of volition. Someone much older or younger, from a radically different culture, even someone with different physical characteristics are presented with a narrower bandwidth of free will to me. I have to consciously fight the default prejudice that steers me into stereotypical associations, otherwise I tend to think that what I see of a person and what I assume about them based on their appearance is what is influencing their behavior. I think This is how children behave., but I can still realize that any individual child has some capacity to deviate from my generic expectations. The closer I get to a person, the more that I know them, the deeper the subjective connection and the higher quality of individuality I can resolve in my perception of them, their life, etc. Take that interpersonal phenomenon of prejudice and magnify it exponentially to other species of animal, biology, and finally physical phenomena of a vastly different scale such as planet or molecule. I'm not suggesting that we should consider atoms to be 'people just like us' or something, I'm trying to explain how self- similarity functions as an elemental principle which unites Perception with General Relativity. Free will is a feature of subjective perception, while determinism is how free will appears when it is reflected through existential aperture as relativity. Probability is the external view of Feeling or Mood. It's the same thing, only probability is distanced as an a-signifying, generic, automatic, unconscious phenomenon while mood is a sensorimotive experience of the same thing. It is reflected through the essential aperture as signifying, proprietary, volitional, sentient phenomenon. As for trying to conceive of Many Worlds or a grand consciousness, I prefer to think of the singularity as what you get when you suck out all of the space and time from the cosmos. Once you realize that size and distance have no meaning outside of their perceptual-relativism of one phenomena to another, then the idea of a singularity from which the big bang 'emerges' as an event in time becomes a phenomena outside of timespace and embracing all matter-energy changes. It is a phenomenon which is, therefore, always occurring and never occurring. It is absolutely unconscious-deterministic and sentient-volitional at the same time - but probably much more and much less than that. We can only describe it as an ant might describe the workings of a microwave oven... and yet we can understand fully it by not describing it at all. Being. Doing. Feeling. Experiencing. On May 16, 10:49 am, selva selvakr1...@gmail.com wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ?
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Deqr Craig, it makes a lot of sense what you expressed in (too many?) words. May I add some more? In general you take most of our 'human' concepts as final, fixed, defined FACTS (?) and look at the world through them. Such anthropocentric position denigrates the limitlessness of the world. There are innumerable aspects we did not (yet?) meet and so omit their influence on our thinking, behavior, emotions, events, whatever. Our 'mind' (undefined) is part of the totality (unlimited complexity) and so whatever we 'feel' as our own decision is a product of the combined influences we receive - including the input of our mental built. (That includes the felling of a falsifiability as well). In our 'ways' we may have choices and that adds to our 'free' feeling. An interesting idea for a singularity to have no space and time, the base-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the (physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take important for (my term) singularity. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism. They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective topologies. What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will, illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense of teleology were there not such a possibility already inherent in the mechanics themselves. Not only would it be superfluous and counterproductive from an efficiency standpoint, but there really is no aspect of physics or biochemistry which could serve as a toolbox for creating some kind of simulation of participation and agency. You can make a machine seem like it has free will, but unless the machine feels like it has free will - feels the risks of consequences of it's words and actions to it's own survival - feels it's own survival with visceral, overwhelming significance, then there is only the reflection of our own free will. When I look at another human being who is similar to myself, I subconsciously qualify their agency with a shared sense of volition. Someone much older or younger, from a radically different culture, even someone with different physical characteristics are presented with a narrower bandwidth of free will to me. I have to consciously fight the default prejudice that steers me into stereotypical associations, otherwise I tend to think that what I see of a person and what I assume about them based on their appearance is what is influencing their behavior. I think This is how children behave., but I can still realize that any individual child has some capacity to deviate from my generic expectations. The closer I get to a person, the more that I know them, the deeper the subjective connection and the higher quality of individuality I can resolve in my perception of them, their life, etc. Take that interpersonal phenomenon of prejudice and magnify it exponentially to other species of animal, biology, and finally physical phenomena of a vastly different scale such as planet or molecule. I'm not suggesting that we should consider atoms to be 'people just like us' or something, I'm trying to explain how self- similarity functions as an elemental principle which unites Perception with General Relativity. Free will is a feature of subjective perception, while determinism is how free will appears when it is reflected through existential aperture as relativity. Probability is the external view of Feeling or Mood. It's the same thing, only probability is distanced as an a-signifying, generic, automatic, unconscious phenomenon while mood is a sensorimotive experience of the same thing. It is reflected through the essential aperture as signifying, proprietary, volitional, sentient phenomenon. As for trying to conceive of Many Worlds or a grand consciousness, I prefer to think of the singularity as what you get when you suck out all of the space and time from the cosmos. Once you realize that size and distance have no meaning outside of their perceptual-relativism of one phenomena to another, then the idea of a singularity from which the big bang 'emerges' as an event in time becomes a
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:06, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: all is number? but was there not all before number? numbers need their objects. Why. It looks to me I need numbers to distinguish object, even to distinguish them form myself. I can easily conceive numbers without object, but not vice versa. Not also, that no one said that all is numbers. Indeed we know to day, that if 3-all is number then 1-all is vasltly greater than all the numbers. numbers must refer to something... Why? I got the ffeliong that you assume a primitive physical reality. I do not. (nor do I assume there is no such physical reality). But I do show such a reality emerge from the numbers, once you assume that the brain function like a machine. the symbol must have its substaces, even if that substaces is relatively indeterminate independent of the symbol, or only visible via the symbol. Numbers are a relationship between thinker and something else which encompasses and differentiates from it. There is an interaction going on and number is the intermediary. It seems to me that you are trying to resurrect some possibility of a theosophical mysticism which is predicated on immortality or it has no substance at all, and immortality is further predicated on some kind of Other World that is the sum of all positive attributes. I just show that mechanism is incompatible with (weak) materialism. Not that I criticize your attempt, anything that complicates a simple common sense realism I am in favor of but I don't see how reading Platos Republic or Timeaus or Parmenides is gonna help us move forward neither do I see how mathematics equals what is It does not. If my body is a machine, then neither mind nor matter are completely mathematical (unless you enlarge the sense of mathematics). The main point is that neither mind, nor matter are primitively physical. I just show that mechanism does not solve the mind-body problem per se, but on the contrary that it can help going to a mathematical formulation of the problem. and only equals what is. neither do I see how Pythagorean Tektraktys or source of nature in eternal motion or Indianism is gonna help us move forward? you seem to optimistic about spiritualistic possibilities. It seems that you Bruno, are trying to covertly resurrect a kind of Platonism Have you study the UD Argument? It shows that if we assume that the brain works like a universal machine at some description level, then Aristotle theology get falsified. Not Plato's one. I am a logician. I don't try to find some truth. I just show that if you believe in this theory, then you have to believe in that theory. I assume a minimal amount of rationality, which is made eventually precise. And yes, I do argue that comp, (not me) resurrect Plato and Plotinus. I provide a clear arithmetical interpretation of those discourses. You might take a look on my paper on Plotinus (on my url front page). Bruno On May 29, 12:15 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2011, at 20:22, selva kumar wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi selva, On 16 May 2011, at 16:49, selva wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right, This can't be right, if we assume that the brain (or whatever capable of sustaining consciousness) can be emulated by a Turing machine, as most people believe. then how can we say ,we have free will ? A determinist theory of free will is possible. What counts is that no machine can determine itself completely, so that the determinism of his/her behavior is known only by God, not by the machine, nor by machine of equivalent complexity. Now, if you mean that free will is the capacity to disobey to arithmetic, then it does not exist, most probably. why is there binary state at all ? OK. You could have asked equivalently: why is there natural numbers? Logicians have shown last century that this is impossible to answer. Actually we need the natural numbers to ask why natural numbers. They cannot be recover from any simpler theory. So we have to have some faith in them. It is part of the initial postulates. if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? Such a probability can be explained by self-duplication. If you are a machine, I can scan you (in principle) and duplicate you in two different places. You cannot predict in advance what will be your subjective
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi selva, On 16 May 2011, at 16:49, selva wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right, This can't be right, if we assume that the brain (or whatever capable of sustaining consciousness) can be emulated by a Turing machine, as most people believe. then how can we say ,we have free will ? A determinist theory of free will is possible. What counts is that no machine can determine itself completely, so that the determinism of his/her behavior is known only by God, not by the machine, nor by machine of equivalent complexity. Now, if you mean that free will is the capacity to disobey to arithmetic, then it does not exist, most probably. why is there binary state at all ? OK. You could have asked equivalently: why is there natural numbers? Logicians have shown last century that this is impossible to answer. Actually we need the natural numbers to ask why natural numbers. They cannot be recover from any simpler theory. So we have to have some faith in them. It is part of the initial postulates. if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? Such a probability can be explained by self-duplication. If you are a machine, I can scan you (in principle) and duplicate you in two different places. You cannot predict in advance what will be your subjective experience after the duplication. BTW, this can be used to explain that free-will is not explainable by the use of indeterminacy. why is there probability functions at all ? Assuming we are digital machines, the answer is that the reality of realities is very huge. There is an infinity of computations going through your actual state of mind, and computer science explains why no machine can know which computations, nor even which sheaf of computations support it. There is automatically a statistics for the observable. If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Why? On the contrary. To have free will you must have some ability to make change around you. You certainly need some amount of determinacy. can i argue that the my ability to make change around me arises from the changes around me.. you are now thinking what you are thinking only because i asked you thisthat is,with your so called ability i am changing some thing,and that changed things gives you the ability to change things around you..so going backwards..(events are affected only by the past occurences in the cone).wont we come to a single cause? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). If by universe you mean physical universe, it is not clear if that exist. Strictly speaking it is an open problem. With mechanism we can say that there are many dreams, and we can say that some dreams glue well together to form shared dreams. But it is not known if they glue so well as to define a singular physical universe, or even just a singular physical multiverse. Extremely hard question. Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? You might be naive about we, body and universe. No problem, it is a tradition since theology has been abandon to politics 1500 years ago, in Occident. (Closure of Plato Academy in Athena, about 525 after JC). Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? If you accept the idea that your brain can be simulated at some correct level of substitution (so that you would survive a digital brain substitution), then the additive and multiplicative structure of numbers defines a vast block mindscape, containing many dreams (as seen from inside). Some dreams glue and generate sharable (among collectivities of universal numbers) deep histories, which are seen as universe appearance from their points views. The physical realm does not disappear, but is secondary to the numbers dreams. The physical realm is still fundamental, but it is epistemological, not ontological. You might read the shortest paper(*) I wrote to sum up the consequences of taking seriously the *assumption* that we are Turing emulable. We discussed it a lot. Some have not yet seen the point, I'm afraid. I sum up it provocatively sometimes by saying that if we are rational machine, then we have to abandon the theology
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On 29 May 2011, at 20:22, selva kumar wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi selva, On 16 May 2011, at 16:49, selva wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right, This can't be right, if we assume that the brain (or whatever capable of sustaining consciousness) can be emulated by a Turing machine, as most people believe. then how can we say ,we have free will ? A determinist theory of free will is possible. What counts is that no machine can determine itself completely, so that the determinism of his/her behavior is known only by God, not by the machine, nor by machine of equivalent complexity. Now, if you mean that free will is the capacity to disobey to arithmetic, then it does not exist, most probably. why is there binary state at all ? OK. You could have asked equivalently: why is there natural numbers? Logicians have shown last century that this is impossible to answer. Actually we need the natural numbers to ask why natural numbers. They cannot be recover from any simpler theory. So we have to have some faith in them. It is part of the initial postulates. if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? Such a probability can be explained by self-duplication. If you are a machine, I can scan you (in principle) and duplicate you in two different places. You cannot predict in advance what will be your subjective experience after the duplication. BTW, this can be used to explain that free-will is not explainable by the use of indeterminacy. why is there probability functions at all ? Assuming we are digital machines, the answer is that the reality of realities is very huge. There is an infinity of computations going through your actual state of mind, and computer science explains why no machine can know which computations, nor even which sheaf of computations support it. There is automatically a statistics for the observable. If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Why? On the contrary. To have free will you must have some ability to make change around you. You certainly need some amount of determinacy. can i argue that the my ability to make change around me arises from the changes around me.. you are now thinking what you are thinking only because i asked you thisthat is,with your so called ability i am changing some thing,and that changed things gives you the ability to change things around you..so going backwards..(events are affected only by the past occurences in the cone).wont we come to a single cause? Yes. Assuming we are machine, elementary arithmetic is enough. And we cannot justify this with less than arithmetic, making it a theory of everything. The Pythagoreans were right, after all. They are redeemed by Church thesis. Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). If by universe you mean physical universe, it is not clear if that exist. Strictly speaking it is an open problem. With mechanism we can say that there are many dreams, and we can say that some dreams glue well together to form shared dreams. But it is not known if they glue so well as to define a singular physical universe, or even just a singular physical multiverse. Extremely hard question. Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? You might be naive about we, body and universe. No problem, it is a tradition since theology has been abandon to politics 1500 years ago, in Occident. (Closure of Plato Academy in Athena, about 525 after JC). Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? If you accept the idea that your brain can be simulated at some correct level of substitution (so that you would survive a digital brain substitution), then the additive and multiplicative structure of numbers defines a vast block mindscape, containing many dreams (as seen from inside). Some dreams glue and generate sharable (among collectivities of universal numbers) deep histories, which are seen as universe appearance from their points views. The physical realm does not disappear, but is secondary to the numbers dreams. The physical realm is still fundamental, but it is epistemological, not ontological. You might read the shortest
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On 29 May 2011, at 20:22, selva kumar wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi selva, On 16 May 2011, at 16:49, selva wrote: If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Why? On the contrary. To have free will you must have some ability to make change around you. You certainly need some amount of determinacy. can i argue that the my ability to make change around me arises from the changes around me.. you are now thinking what you are thinking only because i asked you thisthat is,with your so called ability i am changing some thing,and that changed things gives you the ability to change things around you..so going backwards..(events are affected only by the past occurences in the cone).wont we come to a single cause? Not if there is quantum randomness; in which case there will be multiple causes. But if you subscribe to the multiple worlds interpretation then the evolution will be deterministic but what is meant by you will be uncertain. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Quentin,
good question. My agnostic thinking asks first: can you define death? I
think it is something like the opposite of life - begging the question:
how would you define LIFE? \
Our terms are subsets for the figment physical world and I would not go
along with the medical definition of death without an adequate term of
'life' pointing to the *end* of which.
I 'think' life is much more than a biologic process - especially restricted
to carbon-based physical constructs (molecules?) and borderlines as e.g.
'cell-membranes' etc.
The closest I came up death calls for a disintegration of complexity (at
least its functional(?) substantial parts) in relations we can characterize
in our biosphere as *LIFE*, notable as exercising Metabolism and Repair
('MR' after: Robert Rosen).
If life is not a noun, rather a process, the discontinuation of it also may
be a process with different parameters.
John M
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't all of this a denial of death ? Is it possible to ascribe a meaning
to the end of consciousness ?
Quentin
2011/5/21 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
Brent: I mostly agree (if it is of any value...).
I am FOR an idea of MWI (maybe not as the 'classic' goes: in my view ALL
of them may be potentially different) but appreciate the power of hearsay
(absorbed as FACT) - you may include other sensory/mental domains as well.
What I take exception to is the *world building role* of an assumption
of a deterministic evolution of THE(?) wave function. -
Of what???
John
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2011 4:31 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Scerir and Friends,
Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin
makes a very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the
experience of free will.
Doesn't seem very forceful to me. There's a contradiction between the
MWI and free will because the MWI assumes deterministic evolution of the
wave function. But that doesn't show that there is a contradiction between
MWI and the *experience* of free-will. You could as well say that the
feeling to time passage is a forceful argument for physical time.
Brent
You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA
I think that Gisin's argument is stunted by the fact that he does not
consider the effects of multiple entities having free will and instead only
considers a single entity having free will in the MWI picture. His point in
the paper that if a specific interaction with one possible state of affair
produce a desired effect, this very same specific interaction with most of
the other - equally real according to many-worlds - state of affairs would
produce uncontrolled random effects. Hence, it seems that there is no way to
maintain a possible window for free will in the many-worlds view is correct
but the uncontrolled randomness is only random because we can only resort
to an equiprobable ensemble to do calculations of the effects of the
interaction in that context.
If we consider multiple observers within the MWI, it seems to me that
in order for some measure of coherent communications to obtain between them
there must be something like a super-selection rule on the branches of the
superpositions such that only those mutually compatible observables are able
to form a set of mutually true (in the bivalent Boolean sense) in the sense
of relative commutativity of observables on each time-like (not just
space-like) hypersurface of a foliation of space-time for those observers. I
think that this is something that decoherence is pointing toward.
Free will follows from the lack of a priori determinateness of the
members of that set of observables. Just as we cannot demonstrate a
computation that can compute whether or not a given computation will halt,
we can similarly not demonstrate a finite Cauchy hypersurface of initial
conditions that can uniquely determine both the order of measurements nor
the mutual results of those measurements. Free Will is the freedom to chose
the basis of a measurement.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: scerir
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:15 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time?
Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds
-Nicolas Gisin
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440
Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something
about all
possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations.
Hence Nature is
nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief
review of some
recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the
existence of free
will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics.
--
You received
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
By coincidence, I recently came across the following quote from Roger Penrose's paper “Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow - A Reply to Commentaries on Shadows of the Mind”. Offered without comment. I just thought it was interesting: == What kind of a theory might it be that determines these choices? Many people who are unhappy with computationalism would be just as unhappy with any other type of mathematical scheme for determining them. For they might argue that it is here that free will makes its entry, and they would be unhappy that their free-will choices could be determined by any kind of mathematics. My own view would be to wait and see what kind of non-computable scheme ultimately emerges. Perhaps a sophisticated enough mathematical scheme will turn out not to be so incompatible with our (feelings of) free will. However, McCarthy takes the view that I am quite confused about free will, and that my ideas are not repairable. I am not really clear about which of my confused ideas McCarthy is referring to. In Shadows, I did not say much about the issue of free will, except to raise certain issues. Indeed, I am not at all sure what my views on the subject actually are. Perhaps that means that I am confused, but I do not see that these ideas are remotely well enough defined to be irreparable! == Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Isn't all of this a denial of death ? Is it possible to ascribe a meaning to the end of consciousness ? Quentin 2011/5/21 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com Brent: I mostly agree (if it is of any value...). I am FOR an idea of MWI (maybe not as the 'classic' goes: in my view ALL of them may be potentially different) but appreciate the power of hearsay (absorbed as FACT) - you may include other sensory/mental domains as well. What I take exception to is the *world building role* of an assumption of a deterministic evolution of THE(?) wave function. - Of what??? John On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2011 4:31 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Scerir and Friends, Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin makes a very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the experience of free will. Doesn't seem very forceful to me. There's a contradiction between the MWI and free will because the MWI assumes deterministic evolution of the wave function. But that doesn't show that there is a contradiction between MWI and the *experience* of free-will. You could as well say that the feeling to time passage is a forceful argument for physical time. Brent You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA I think that Gisin's argument is stunted by the fact that he does not consider the effects of multiple entities having free will and instead only considers a single entity having free will in the MWI picture. His point in the paper that if a specific interaction with one possible state of affair produce a desired effect, this very same specific interaction with most of the other - equally real according to many-worlds - state of affairs would produce uncontrolled random effects. Hence, it seems that there is no way to maintain a possible window for free will in the many-worlds view is correct but the uncontrolled randomness is only random because we can only resort to an equiprobable ensemble to do calculations of the effects of the interaction in that context. If we consider multiple observers within the MWI, it seems to me that in order for some measure of coherent communications to obtain between them there must be something like a super-selection rule on the branches of the superpositions such that only those mutually compatible observables are able to form a set of mutually true (in the bivalent Boolean sense) in the sense of relative commutativity of observables on each time-like (not just space-like) hypersurface of a foliation of space-time for those observers. I think that this is something that decoherence is pointing toward. Free will follows from the lack of a priori determinateness of the members of that set of observables. Just as we cannot demonstrate a computation that can compute whether or not a given computation will halt, we can similarly not demonstrate a finite Cauchy hypersurface of initial conditions that can uniquely determine both the order of measurements nor the mutual results of those measurements. Free Will is the freedom to chose the basis of a measurement. Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: scerir Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: FREE WILL--is it really free? Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi Scerir and Friends, Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin makes a very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the experience of free will. You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA I think that Gisin's argument is stunted by the fact that he does not consider the effects of multiple entities having free will and instead only considers a single entity having free will in the MWI picture. His point in the paper that if a specific interaction with one possible state of affair produce a desired effect, this very same specific interaction with most of the other - equally real according to many-worlds - state of affairs would produce uncontrolled random effects. Hence, it seems that there is no way to maintain a possible window for free will in the many-worlds view is correct but the uncontrolled randomness is only random because we can only resort to an equiprobable ensemble to do calculations of the effects of the interaction in that context. If we consider multiple observers within the MWI, it seems to me that in order for some measure of coherent communications to obtain between them there must be something like a super-selection rule on the branches of the superpositions such that only those mutually compatible observables are able to form a set of mutually true (in the bivalent Boolean sense) in the sense of relative commutativity of observables on each time-like (not just space-like) hypersurface of a foliation of space-time for those observers. I think that this is something that decoherence is pointing toward. Free will follows from the lack of a priori determinateness of the members of that set of observables. Just as we cannot demonstrate a computation that can compute whether or not a given computation will halt, we can similarly not demonstrate a finite Cauchy hypersurface of initial conditions that can uniquely determine both the order of measurements nor the mutual results of those measurements. Free Will is the freedom to chose the basis of a measurement. Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: scerir Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: FREE WILL--is it really free? Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On 5/19/2011 4:31 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Scerir and Friends, Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin makes a very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the experience of free will. Doesn't seem very forceful to me. There's a contradiction between the MWI and free will because the MWI assumes deterministic evolution of the wave function. But that doesn't show that there is a contradiction between MWI and the *experience* of free-will. You could as well say that the feeling to time passage is a forceful argument for physical time. Brent You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA I think that Gisin's argument is stunted by the fact that he does not consider the effects of multiple entities having free will and instead only considers a single entity having free will in the MWI picture. His point in the paper that if a specific interaction with one possible state of affair produce a desired effect, this very same specific interaction with most of the other - equally real according to many-worlds - state of affairs would produce uncontrolled random effects. Hence, it seems that there is no way to maintain a possible window for free will in the many-worlds view is correct but the uncontrolled randomness is only random because we can only resort to an equiprobable ensemble to do calculations of the effects of the interaction in that context. If we consider multiple observers within the MWI, it seems to me that in order for some measure of coherent communications to obtain between them there must be something like a super-selection rule on the branches of the superpositions such that only those mutually compatible observables are able to form a set of mutually true (in the bivalent Boolean sense) in the sense of relative commutativity of observables on each time-like (not just space-like) hypersurface of a foliation of space-time for those observers. I think that this is something that decoherence is pointing toward. Free will follows from the lack of a priori determinateness of the members of that set of observables. Just as we cannot demonstrate a computation that can compute whether or not a given computation will halt, we can similarly not demonstrate a finite Cauchy hypersurface of initial conditions that can uniquely determine both the order of measurements nor the mutual results of those measurements. Free Will is the freedom to chose the basis of a measurement. Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: scerir Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: FREE WILL--is it really free? Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Recently there was discussion on this list about this question Love and free will http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/8ab31552cd18561c Some citations you will find in my blog http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/04/love-and-free-will.html You might be interested in Rex's Intelligence and Nomologicalism http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5 On 16.05.2011 16:49 selva said the following: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? everything affects everything or not ? P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Could you please tell me if this paper will help me for example to earn more money? Or, according to this paper, does it make sense even try to earn more money? On 17.05.2011 08:15 scerir said the following: Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi selva, On 16 May 2011, at 16:49, selva wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right, This can't be right, if we assume that the brain (or whatever capable of sustaining consciousness) can be emulated by a Turing machine, as most people believe. then how can we say ,we have free will ? A determinist theory of free will is possible. What counts is that no machine can determine itself completely, so that the determinism of his/her behavior is known only by God, not by the machine, nor by machine of equivalent complexity. Now, if you mean that free will is the capacity to disobey to arithmetic, then it does not exist, most probably. why is there binary state at all ? OK. You could have asked equivalently: why is there natural numbers? Logicians have shown last century that this is impossible to answer. Actually we need the natural numbers to ask why natural numbers. They cannot be recover from any simpler theory. So we have to have some faith in them. It is part of the initial postulates. if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? Such a probability can be explained by self-duplication. If you are a machine, I can scan you (in principle) and duplicate you in two different places. You cannot predict in advance what will be your subjective experience after the duplication. BTW, this can be used to explain that free-will is not explainable by the use of indeterminacy. why is there probability functions at all ? Assuming we are digital machines, the answer is that the reality of realities is very huge. There is an infinity of computations going through your actual state of mind, and computer science explains why no machine can know which computations, nor even which sheaf of computations support it. There is automatically a statistics for the observable. If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Why? On the contrary. To have free will you must have some ability to make change around you. You certainly need some amount of determinacy. Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). If by universe you mean physical universe, it is not clear if that exist. Strictly speaking it is an open problem. With mechanism we can say that there are many dreams, and we can say that some dreams glue well together to form shared dreams. But it is not known if they glue so well as to define a singular physical universe, or even just a singular physical multiverse. Extremely hard question. Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? You might be naive about we, body and universe. No problem, it is a tradition since theology has been abandon to politics 1500 years ago, in Occident. (Closure of Plato Academy in Athena, about 525 after JC). Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? If you accept the idea that your brain can be simulated at some correct level of substitution (so that you would survive a digital brain substitution), then the additive and multiplicative structure of numbers defines a vast block mindscape, containing many dreams (as seen from inside). Some dreams glue and generate sharable (among collectivities of universal numbers) deep histories, which are seen as universe appearance from their points views. The physical realm does not disappear, but is secondary to the numbers dreams. The physical realm is still fundamental, but it is epistemological, not ontological. You might read the shortest paper(*) I wrote to sum up the consequences of taking seriously the *assumption* that we are Turing emulable. We discussed it a lot. Some have not yet seen the point, I'm afraid. I sum up it provocatively sometimes by saying that if we are rational machine, then we have to abandon the theology of Aristotle (atheism christianism etc.) for the theology of Plato (objective idealism, Pythagorism, some budhist and indian school or thought). In the first one there is an emphasis on the 'creation'. In the second one the creation is a sign of something else (actually arithmetic). (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html everything affects everything or not ? In which sense? In our local physical realm even a big supernova
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Evgenii , I appreciate Nicolas Gisin, like I appreciate a lot Conway and Kochen, but they have in common that once they talk on free will they utter non sense. I will probably read Gisin's paper, but I have not really the time right now. Let me says tell you why I doubt on the interest on this, from reading just the abstract: the MWI has been invented notably for making physics local, as Everett and Tipler have already explained, and as Deutsch and Hayden have made even more clear. So I guess there is either an error in Gisin, or that he has made a very interesting discovery. But I doubt, especially that he might have a non compatibilist theory of free will, which makes almost non sense for me. You have already to postulate non-comp to get it. Hmm... Of course if the goal is to make money, that can be a road. People like wishful non-sense. But you might make more money with astrology or with pseudo-religion. Bruno On 17 May 2011, at 10:40, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Could you please tell me if this paper will help me for example to earn more money? Or, according to this paper, does it make sense even try to earn more money? On 17.05.2011 08:15 scerir said the following: Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Evgenii writes: Could you please tell me if this paper will help me for example to earn more money? Or, according to this paper, does it make sense even try to earn more money? Did you see The Sting (1973, Paul Newman and Robert Redford)? I think that something like that is possible coupling Renninger's paradox (null measurement) and MWI. Not so easy though. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
FREE WILL--is it really free?
Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? everything affects everything or not ? P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi selva, We are actively exploring exactly those kinds of questions. Please feel free to jump in, the water is warm. ;-) Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: selva Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:49 AM To: Everything List Subject: FREE WILL--is it really free? Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? everything affects everything or not ? P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On 5/16/2011 7:49 AM, selva wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? See Daniel Dennett's book Elbow Room for a good exposition of compatibilist free will. why is there binary state at all ? I don't understand that question? Computers use binary representations because it physically more efficient, although there have been computers that used base three, and of course analog computers. if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? That depends on what you mean by free will and whether you think the world is deterministic. By affects do you mean determines or could it mean change the probability of? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? Probability is a mathematical model. It can be used to model events where we are ignorant of the causes, although we assume they exist. That's how it was invented, by game players. But it isn't necessary to assume there are unknown causes. The same model then describes inherent randomness. If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? No. Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? I have no reason to believe the premise of that question. Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? It's convenient model of measurement in quantum mechanics to avoid the question of why measurements need to be described by a physical process (projection) different from all other physical processes (unitary evolution by the Hamiltonian). Whether such worlds are real is controversial. everything affects everything or not ? In physics, things can only affect events in their future light cone and events are only affected by events in their past light cone. There are some theories, such as Bohm's quantum mechanics, which violate this rule, but none that are accepted. P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. Brent Why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is unstable --- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate 2004 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
