Jump to content

NIN

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NIN

  1. First off, I'm not quite sure if this is in the right section...I guess that in some sense this could be considered more of a philosophy question than a science one. Anyways, here goes:

     

    Most people probably believe that we have free will, and that all of our actions are completely decided by, well, "us".

     

    I'm not so sure about it, though. Here's my reasoning:

     

    Most of the universe seems to work in very exact clockwork patterns. If you mix A amount of B chemical with X amount of Y chemical, it will always produce the same results. No variation. Of course, you could say that something like flipping a coin is random. But is it really? The amount of force you flip it with, which side is face-up to begin with, how far it has to fall etc. are all factors in how it will land. So doesn't it boil down to exact physics?

     

    With that being said, if things typically aren't random and are always decided by every tiny factor involved, who's to say that our brains are any different? If a certain person is placed in a certain situation, wouldn't they always make the same decision? Obviously you couldn't test this because if you put a person in the same situation twice, they'd essentially be a different person the second time, as they'd know the results of what happened the first time.

     

    Can anyone provide any arguments against my theory? Does anyone agree with it?

     

    Thanks, NIN.

  2. I finally got it. I feel like an idiot now, it's simple as Hell. I was just over-thinking it and trying to come up with super complex ideas to how it works, when it's actually really simple.

     

    What I didn't take into consideration is the fact that the host will not chose the door that you've already chosen.

  3. I dont know as such... it just seems to me that the universe exists in an ever-changing state, and that once the universe has changed -- once something is 'in the past' -- it no longer exists, as there are no records being kept. In fact, I can't see how or where the information for past 'configurations' of our universe could be stored, so I dont see how the past could still exist in any way.

     

    Interesting. I've never thought of the fact that the universe probably isn't storing the past.

     

    On a side note: To people who say that time doesn't really "exist", I'm pretty sure it does. Matter is known for bending space and time...If time is affected by matter, then doesn't that mean that it must exist?

  4. original question

    Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?

    Craig F. Whitaker

    Columbia, Maryland

     

    answer

    Yes; you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning, but the second door has a 2/3 chance. Here's a good way to visualize what happened. Suppose there are a million doors, and you pick door #1. Then the host, who knows what's behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens them all except door #777,777. You'd switch to that door pretty fast, wouldn't you?

     

     

     

    http://www.marilynvossavant.com/articles/gameshow.html

     

    He'd avoid all except #777,777, but he'd also avoid the one you chose in this particular situation. So I still don't quite understand what the difference is...

  5. snip

     

    Wow, I guess so. That's a hard one to think about, though. To me, the thing that's confusing is that it doesn't make sense that the door that YOU chose should change the probability, since the chooser is an external force, and shouldn't affect the outcome of the problem itself. It seems as though it should go from 33% 33% 33% into 50% 50%. I guess your right though, it's just confusing to me, for the reasons I just said. I'm sure I'll understand it more thoroughly with thought, though.

  6. I think you should ponder further your definition of "free will." What does "without coersion or influence" mean? Does it simply mean, for example, that there is no reason you couldn't of made any other choice? But what does that mean? If there's no reason you make one choice over another, then the choices you make are just random. And if there is a reason, then you're bound on a predetermined path.

     

    So from an absolute, objective standpoint, then I have to say that I strongly believe that not only is there no free will, but that even the term "free will" has no meaning.

     

    But from an objective standpoint is not how I think about free will. I view it as a subjective phenomenon. From your own perspective, you are free to make your own choices. In your mind, you weigh options, and choose one course of action from among many possibilities. That this exists subjectively, in my opinion, is as indisputable as the non-existence of objective free will. You don't need to prove the existence of an experience. The experience is the proof of itself.

     

    Despite how self-evident these things seem to me, I've studied enough and talked to enough very smart people that I know there's literally nothing with no grounds for doubt, so I don't force my views. However, it's been my experience most people who insist on "free will" do not do so on philosophical grounds but rather on a refusal to understand, which seems largely based on an emotional attachment to the poorly defined notion called "free will." This, I think, is born out misunderstanding. People don't want to be "confined," first of all, and second, they want a way to hold themselves and others responsible for their actions. Neither of these is a logical objection, but rather they are emotional motives for desiring a certain outcome, regardless of logic.

     

    I have found that it's often helpful in convincing these people to attack these sources of emotion rather than the issue itself. For the former, I just talk about the subjective experience of free will. There is no confinement if you choose not to view it as such. And for the latter, I talk about personal responsibility from a utilitarian standpoint. Regardless of the status of free will, if we hold ourselves and others responsible for our actions, then we all behave better. The only times this isn't the case are the times when we truly shouldn't hold beings "personally" responsible for their actions. Calling a rock evil for falling when you let it go will never stop a single rock from falling. Similarly with demanding those who are "mentally ill" live up to the standards of civilization. But for most of us, the very notion of responsibility is enough, and it is those people who we call "in their right minds," or "freely acting."

     

    [/lecture over]

     

    Very nice post. I'll be thinking this one over for a while.

  7. This is a more difficult question that you may realize, because one can become a very accomplished mathematician in one aspect of math without even knowing the basics of the other aspects. I.e. one can become and expert at discrete probability and statistics without ever taking a calculus class. One can become an expert on solving differential equations and proving existence and uniqueness of those solutions without necessarily knowing anything about abstract algebra. There are many experts of discrete mathematics who are very weak in continuous mathematics. So, it isn't as simple as there being any one order to take math.

     

    That said, there is a natural progression and it is probably worth knowing the basics of a lot of different branches to see what part of the tree you want to go up. You'll probably want to take calculus, a good probability and statistics class, and some discrete mathematics and build from there.

     

    Well, I was looking at the calculus guide, and I noticed that there were a few things that I hadn't learned in school yet, and it's kind of hard to do forms of math such as calculus when I don't really know the prerequisites too well, if at all. I see what you mean about it being more complex than simply a singular line of expertise. I'll try to find out what's best for my self.

  8. Hi, does anyone have an "order" of maths? I know it sounds strange, but I need a list of different types of maths, and in which order they should be explored. I hope to be a mathematician or a physicist someday, but I'm still struggling with the 10th grade math that I'm doing now >.< so I'd like some type of list, so that I can first perfect the current math that I'm doing with online guides, then know where to move next. Also, this would help me ace a lot of my math tests.

     

    If anyone has any advice, or a link or anything of the sort, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

  9. I've heard of people being overhormonal, with it's different causes and effects. But can someone give me more information on this subject? What usually causes a person to become overhormonal? What are many of the effects or symptoms?

     

    And encase you're wondering, the reason I ask, is because I have huge manboobs for a male of my size and age, and I'm also harrier than any of my friends that are my age. People have said that it could have something to do with being overhormonal/having overactive or dysfunctional hormones. So I'm just curious, and decided to see what some rather more credible, intelligent sources could say about the subject.

  10. I'm pretty sure the planet expands, however a minuscule amount it may be. But, it has nothing to do with dark matter or whatever you mentioned, it's because the Earth takes in 20 tons of matter per day, through meteorites. Of course, whatever you mentioned can happen too, although I know too little in those subjects to really say anything of them.

  11. Ok. As many of us know, the larger an object is, the more powerful the gravitation field. Also, the closer two object's are, the stronger the gravitational attraction. So, here's what doesn't make sense to me.

     

    Look at the planet Mercury. It's a reasonably large planet, and the closest one to the Sun. It's close enough to stay in orbit, yet far enough not to get sucked in by the Sun's gravity. Then, look at Pluto. It's like 10 times as far from the Sun as Mercury, and way smaller, and yet it doesn't drift off?

     

    So, my question is, how is that the Sun's gravity is weak enough to not suck in Mercury, yet strong enough to keep Pluto in orbit?

  12. I'm sorry if I'm bumping up a dead thread, but I used the search function to find this, so I don't know how "dead" this is.

     

    I'm reading the book (I don't own it, I have to keep going to the library, even though it's only across the street) and it is really confusing. I'm only on the third chapter...But seeing as how I'm just a 10th grader, this is already becoming a pain to understand >.<

  13. It's been a while since I've replied to this thread, so I've got a lot of catching up to do :P

     

    Paldren, I think your post was the most interesting (personally). Things can appear to be random, although the actual randomness is far more likely to simply be a deterministic clockwork beyond our understanding. Also what you said about the paradox of a "future calculating" computer was very interesting, and answered a question of mine actually. Back when I first came up with the ideas presented in this thread, I thought to my self that it's very possible for the future to be determined through calculations in a deterministic universe. Then the question came to me "What if a being knew everything, calculated the future, then chose to change the said future?"

     

    But your computer-paradox statement fixed that for me.

     

    Everyone else that posted, sorry I can't reply to you specifically. But I'll keep reading and (hopefully) replying to this thread.

  14. Quantum behaviors are considered to be truly random by most scientists, that is, that they have no cause. I am a big fan of cause and effect, and find that statement anathema. There is no way to prove that it is uncaused, so they are making an assumption that is unprovable and has deep philosophical implications[/rant]

     

     

     

    But being deterministic, you can say that the choices you made are truly yours, and that you would make them again in the same circumstance, and that there is a reason you made them. Adding a bit of randomness (whether true randomness or pseudorandomness) would improve things a bit so that you are not completely predictable/able to be manipulated. But being totally random would be like if you were a big coin.

     

    Interesting...It makes a good bit of sense, I s'pose. So it's very arguable then?

  15. This is a tad off-topic, but I have a question relating to the gravity of the sun and Earth. If the sun or Earth were to gain a lot of weight (suppose the Sun got hit by a bunch of meteors or something and got heavier), do you guys think that the gravity would increase enough for the Earth to be pulled into the Sun?

  16. Yes, that's the idea. It's not really "moving," per se, since particles like electrons don't actually have a location until they interact with something, they just have a function of probability vs. location, which is a consequence of their wave-like nature. They actually can't have a determinate location. Nothing causes it to happen.

     

     

     

    Well, you're making choices, are you not? So they do exist. The questions are:

    1) Are those choices are predetermined or random?

    2) What is "free will," exactly?

    3) Which option, if any, represents (or at least allows) "free will?"

    4) Does it matter?

     

    You say predetermination seems to contradict free will. That's fine. But is randomness free will? If not, then what do you actually mean by "free will?" If it's not predetermination, and it's not randomness, then it's not anything, and you have to either adjust your definition or abandon it as a meaningless phrase.

     

    On the subject of randomness being similar to free will, I suppose it's simply because I see randomness as an absence of determination. About everything else that you mentioned...Well, I don't know. I'll have to think about it.

  17. I can't say I completely disagree - although I'm effectively a hypocrite just for that, I suppose. I'm a 15 year old American, so I guess I'm used to it...But at the same time, I'm not too different from what you described. I don't talk like a gangsta, I don't walk around with "gadgets" (never had an iPod, only had one cell phone), I don't wear a hat, and I don't compete to look like others at all, and yet I can still see a resemblance in my self of what you speak of. Interesting.

     

    EDIT: After thinking it a bit more, I'm really starting to realize what you're talking about. Walking around school, all you see is guys walking around with chicks trying to sneak in a mention about their penis in every sentence, or all-to-often people making out on the walls to show how cool they are for having a girlfriend. Just like everyone else. And then there's the prejudice. Everyone seems to love making fun of gays, Jews, emos etc, just so that they can rejoice in the fact that people are "under" them.

     

    Again, I'm probably a hypocrite, as I'm still a bit of an attention whore just like everyone else, it's just that I achieve that status in a different way than all the other bone-heads my age :P

  18. There is randomness in quantum mechanics, and there is also "statistical determinism" on larger scales. For example, there is a finite probability that all the electrons in the floor beneath your feet will simultaneously decide to be elsewhere in the universe, and you'll fall right through. However, this is so ridiculously unlikely that we can basically say with certainty that that won't ever happen to anyone anywhere, and deterministic laws of physics work just fine. Everything is affected by some degree of randomness, but different degrees. Whether there is a significant amount of randomness in the workings of the brain isn't entirely clear.

     

    About electrons "deciding" to move. Is that a truly random phenomenon? I know nothing about that topic, but is that a case in which absolutely NOTHING causes it to happen?

     

    And, I believe someone said that randomness would only hinder free will. The reason that I believe that a universe absent of any random activity would be a universe with no free will, is that the future would be predetermined, would it not? And if the future is far predetermined, I don't see how our choices really exist.

  19. Really? Interesting. Randomness doesn't make sense to me at all. I know nothing about quantum mechanics. Could you perhaps describe some of this to me in a dumbed-down sense, or give me a link to a site that could help me understand this a little better?

  20. Hi. I'm new to these forums, and I just joined because I have a lot of curiosity, and I'm not exactly the best scientist in the world, so go easy on me :)

     

    I've a bit of a "theory" (I'm sure I'm not the first...) about free will, and why I doubt it's existence. I'd like to see if I'm right, and if not, what part of my theory I went wrong in.

     

    Here's the idea. First off, nothing is really random, correct? Like, if you hit a pool ball on a pool table from X angle with Y amount of force, you would be able to calculate EXACTLY where it would end up. Right? Thus making it not random?

     

    Now, if nothing is random in that sense, wouldn't it be the same inside the brain on a very small scale? Such as chemicals mixing and energy flowing, absent of any random things happening. If that is correct, exactly where does the free will take place?

     

    Again, I'm no rocket scientist, so I'm sure that I'm either incorrect, or this is well-known knowledge, but I would like some feedback. Thanks in advance.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.