Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

We certainly can discuss it, but obviously not on this thread. I would be happy to chat message, or accept yours.

....have sent request

The reason I say QM is not deterministic is that it is not.

Suppose you specify the wave function of a particle in empty space. Absolutely any wave function you like. Note that another way of thinking of this is as a sum of eigenstates according to your preferred basis (position eigenstates correspond to the usual eigenstate and the wave function describes the coefficient for every point in space, each of which corresponds to a basis vector - an eigenstate with fixed position.

Now suppose you are going to observe the position of this particle one second later. When you make the observation, you will know the position of the particle precisely.

The wave function at the start determines the wave function at the time of observation (by Schroedinger's equation).  The wave function at the time of the observation determines the PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF THE POSITION.  But it does not determine the position itself. This has an element of randomness.

The reason I described this example with a delay before observation is that without it, you could (in principle) have a wave function that was a Dirac delta function at a specific position, which would mean that for an instant, the position is known precisely. But as time passes uncertainty in the position always grows (because this is a combination of uncertainty in the initial position and uncertainty in the momentum.

So the lack of determinism in quantum mechanics is restricted to observations, described as "collapsing of the wave function" in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Another way to think of it is that the wave function describes our lack of complete knowledge about state, Even when it is in an eigenstate w.r.t. one observable, it will not be w.r.t. another observable if the latter does not commute with the former (eg momentum and position). Observations reduce our lack of complete knowledge for some observable, but the physics (eg Schroedinger's equation) is describing the evolution of the state of knowledge (or the state of knowledge of the state  ) over time.

If you take any hypothetical section of time, you have a state of the universe. Each hypothetical time section relates to a state of the universe and one state seems to relate to the next and so on, simply because these states happen to exist. They simply happen. So if you hypothetically reverse it, you get a hypothetical reversal of causality.

Nothing discussed here so far means that any subsequent state is the fixed and necessary result or effect of a prior state. You have the burden of proof. There is absolutely no reason to accept determinism as real.

OK but it's fine to discuss it on this thread since if dualism is the basis of pure logic then it's clearly related to concepts like determinism, which is being discussed here.

Dualism is not doing well these days. There was a time when people could seriously imagine a non-physical thingy that contained all consciousness and was the source of all choices, but these days we understand the brain just does its own thing and consciousness has to be an amazing epiphenomenon of the physical behaviour of the brain. We, with our consciousnesses are very special objects in the Universe, but in a simple sense we are exactly as much part of the physical Universe as a rock.

Yes but even though I'm 69 and slowing down very much by comparison with the hot sh*ts, I still know an awful lot of sh*t that most of them will never know, which means I can work stuff out in a different way because I have much more useful information, where they have to guess. So I can come up with the basis of various potential and hypothetical mechansms, that enable a kind of mind-material dualism; and this type of thinking itself allows further creativity and promotes greater accuracy.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter "how well" something like dualism is doing .... simply because I like it and find it very useful in helping me think well. You may not be so sure about that but , with respect, your opinion about it is irrelevant to me and all I can try to do is to give some reasons.

Consciousness is, indeed, the  amazing epiphenomenon of the physical behaviour of the brain. Except of course, it isn't an epiphenomenon because simple logic will show that consciousness entails will to survival, which enhances evolution, including that of the brain itself. Consciousness is perhaps the primary function of the brain, although that wasn't its initial function and consciousness is undoubtedly something that has evolved. If we have no consciousness then we only have survival instinct. Consciousness makes that far, far more powerful: with survival rationale.

Of course, we are physical entities but we're also mental entities and you and I differ regarding the exact function of cognition. You seem to regard it as a sort of interesting by-product of our reactions to our perceptions, whereas I regard it more as the basis of them: although via purely physical processes which, like life itself, have evolved in such a way that our mental processes are buffered from the immediate cause and effect of perceptions.

I think I'm right so what others think isn't interesting except as a phenomenon itself .... the present state of attainment of reasonable people without much insight. Yet dualism is far more complex than it may seem and, for instance, it bears strongly on QM, regarding, for example, our ideas about wave function and what it is, because it's very easy to confuse what we think something to be with a range of possibilities of what it might be, when that range of possibilities can hypothetically exist as a physical wave function, as a notional one or both. That alone is a complex subject and I don't even think it's one that's been considered very much.

My point is that in order to train their minds to think about these things more efficiently, it's necessary for people to drop the idea that dualism is unhelpful.

I mean that someone who can't think fluently and naturally in an unfamiliar paradigm isn't capable of translating a mathematical equation on, say, QM, into useful concepts and that to learn to think well is, for most people, a momentous task, because it usually means changing the very way they think, and scientists ought to be made more aware of their towering inabilities that are caused by thinking mechanically.

I am totally in agreement with you that the marvellous nature of consciousness and the mind are the end product of aeons of evolution driven by the pressure of natural selection. The (perhaps excessive) dominance of the Earth by the human species shows that what we have developed to the greatest extent provides large fitness benefits, mostly (IMHO) by enabling the mutually beneficial interactions of local and global society.

opti:"You have the burden of proof. There is absolutely no reason to accept determinism as real."

there's no proof either way. it all comes down to beliefs. and how many times do i have to say that i don't believe in Determinism? i believe in objectivity. part of being objective is to swallow frogs that we dislike. one of them is the possibility of D.

elroch:"The reason I say QM is not deterministic is that it is not."

and why do you make such a subjective statement appear factual? you know very well that the statement above is nothing but your interpretation of choice.

much better. here is a suggestion.. you know how you love to go over people comments and color them. now how about you go over your own comment above (line by line), but this time.. try to be objective and code it with 2 colors of your choice, and by this criteria..

one color for statements that are belief based, and another color for anything that is factual.

I decline.

It's not really a matter of being helpful. For almost all purposes dealing with thinking while ignoring the physical mechanism behind it is appropriate. Pretty much to the same extent that when discussing the behaviour of software, it is normally without any reference to the hardware which implements it. This is a level of abstraction.

The same is true in the relationships between physics (mostly the smallest scale interactions and simple aspects of large scale interactions - such as biomechanics), chemistry (the interaction of molecules without too much concern about the interactions of their smaller parts) and biology (the behaviour of living organisms at scales above individual molecular interactions). It just doesn't help to think about the interactions of electrons and nuclei to understand monkeys. Or kelp.

However, the naturalistic hypothesis - at odds with dualism - has proved a good guide to neuroscientists, who are concerned with the physical basis of all phenomena to which dualism would be related.

WHY DONCHU TAKE THAT EVOLUTION TALK (THAT UR SO OBSESSED W/) BACK TO THAT OTHER THREAD ?? IT DOESNT BELONG HERE...U BONEHEAD !!

wait...im kinda a bonehead too in that i totally luv the macabre. still...not taking it back.   ::/

Elroch is saying there's proof for randomness.

The point I am really making about the "burden of proof" is that determinsm is such a bad hypothesis that there doesn't seem to be any reason why you would suggest it may be true. Perhaps "burden of truth" isn't quite the correct way to express it but you may as well argue the the universe is powered by a giant mushroom whose spores are energised and are carried throughout the universe by pixies, where they turn into stars and are eventually eaten by a giant toad at the centre of the universe, whose poo fertilises the mushroom.

No, that isn't objectivity. It's actually suggestibility and even gullibility.

Oh, I really thought neuroscoience is a pseudoscience .... especially the way it's being treated, in a very mechanistic way that seems to like the parts of the brain without reference to how they interact and which seems to depend on statistical behaviourism, which is a blunt instrument if ever there was one.

The very fact that naturalism is at odds with dualism should indicate that naturalism is insufficient and will not lead to a discovery of how the brain gives rise to the mind. I'm completely sure of that. You see, I think I know something of how it works so I'm sure they're on the wrong track, by miles, European kilometers or even by leagues.

20K ?

inner space...

...and if N-science is then computer science is too.

and why is that? dont you want your readers to know the truth? why did you present a belief based interpretation as being a scientific proof for TR? an expert in the field such as yourself must know the difference, right?