"regarding the compatibility of free will and determinism, some compatibilists have argued that the human soul is very much separate from the outside world"
this is speculative obviously, but he argue that the soul is entangled with the microtubs in our brain or something..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
are you still disputing that the MWI physicists believe in determinism with no true randomness involved?
Well, suppose there is a branch via some random binary event about to occur, of a type where you know you will see one of them happen, but can't tell which it will be.
MWI proponents cannot tell you which one either. That answers your question.
this is pretty much irrelevant because you reduced TR to be nothing more than the ability of physicists to predict events. or iow, you reduced it to be pseudo random.
you know better. how about a sincere approach?
Everything we know about radioactive decay tells us that there can be no determinism involved because each nucleus effectively has no history. - Opti
Each nucleus has no history ???
I suppose by some definition it qualifies has having no history, but that can be disputed. >>>
Having a history entails a history altering it so a history can be identified or leaves a mark. Even a microscopic water droplet could be analysed for such marks in the form of non-H2O ions etc.
are you still disputing that the MWI physicists believe in determinism with no true randomness involved?
Well, suppose there is a branch via some random binary event about to occur, of a type where you know you will see one of them happen, but can't tell which it will be.
MWI proponents cannot tell you which one either. That answers your question.
this is pretty much irrelevant because you reduced TR to be nothing more than the ability of physicists to predict events. or iow, you reduced it to be pseudo random.
you know better. how about a sincere approach?
this is pretty much irrelevant because you reduced TR to be nothing more than the ability of physicists to predict events. or iow, you reduced it to be pseudo random.>>
No I think you're starting to lose the plot. It comes with trying to maintain a dignified difference past its sell-by. Elroch defined randomness as an INABILITY to predict a pattern. I had previously defined it as an inability to recognise a pattern. Really, the two things are more or less synonymous but I slightly preferred Elroch's version because it's more fundamental. Believe me, the definition is correct.
"regarding the compatibility of free will and determinism, some compatibilists have argued that the human soul is very much separate from the outside world"
this is speculative obviously, but he argue that the soul is entangled with the microtubs in our brain or something..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
Best to drop ideas about "soul" as they mean zilch. You can replace it with "mind" or "brain". In order for there to be free will, it is absolutely necessary for the mind to be insulated from immediate causality. Since I am sure free will exists then such insulation exists.
I call it the Zener Effect and anyone who understands what a Zener diode does might be able to guess why I call it that. I should probably write a book or something.
I think Hameroff is wrong. Consciousness is nothing more than a sense. One of our twelve senses. 
not sure i could handle 12 senses : ) which are they?
No I think you're starting to lose the plot. It comes with trying to maintain a dignified difference past its sell-by. Elroch defined randomness as an INABILITY to predict a pattern. I had previously defined it as an inability to recognise a pattern. Really, the two things are more or less synonymous but I slightly preferred Elroch's version because it's more fundamental. Believe me, the definition is correct.
lol. and what if you define TR to be a cookie? does it make it a cookie?
but seriously.. if you ask physicists about TR, they are likely to talk about the wave collapse, and the emergent of truly random information as result. that is truly, absolutely random information.
so it doesnt matter how you define it, because everyone know what it means. but you cant ignore the truly random physical phenomena, and instead talk about the ability of a monkey like creature to predict events : )
but he had another definition before, somthing random to every entity or observer or something.. elroch whats your definition again?
"You've lost me, I'm afraid. Since objectivity is merely the attempt to use our subjective minds in a methodical manner to bring in all the evidence and assess it intelligently, how is objectivity different from subjectivity except in that a person, when trying to be objective, presumably tries very hard to be objective?? That makes it a difference in quantity and not in quality."
i think that the difference has to do with level of beliefs, emotional attachment, etc
take the topic for example.. true randomness (TR)
many people adopted a subjective belief in TR and for them its some sort of a scientific truth with the mechanism of the wave collapse to support it.
but from an objective pov, you dont really develop any strong belief in TR, you simply think of it for what it is. a valid possibility.
you asked about the MW.. i used to think of it as a very low probability because it sound so delusional, but i came to realize that the standard model is not any better, so it doesnt really matter.
I don't think quantum wave collapse is about TR. It occurs, it seems, when an entity is observed by another entity, which means that they interact. It seems deterministic to me, in fact.
Re Many Worlds, it is only regarded as a valid interpretation (or possibility) because some theorists believe it to be. Why do they believe it to be? I think it's because of something called "kudos". They think it seems cool and there can be no other reason because it doesn't tell us anything about how the universe came to be and it's obviously an invention that is completely unsupported except by concocted (false) evidence. And it's ridiculous!
Regarding the 12 senses, it's always been an idea of mine, shared by others. We have six physical senses, so double up and the second set is .... well, I'll leave you to figure it out based on anything you might know about me.
Obviously, the sixth physical sense is the sense of bodily positioning. You're right that the Big Bang is obviously miraculous. Sorry but both ideas are lazy thinking. It's strange that mankind can expend millions of hours of thought and yet the subject matter can be stupid .... a bit like the effort we put in to fighting wars. Only fools do that and yet they can seem very important. But this is straying into politics.
"I don't think quantum wave collapse is about TR. It occurs, it seems, when an entity is observed by another entity, which means that they interact"
the observation itself dont occur randomly. but it cause the wave collapse and truly random info to emerge. or something along that line..
body positioning?
"I don't think quantum wave collapse is about TR. It occurs, it seems, when an entity is observed by another entity, which means that they interact"
the observation itself dont occur randomly. but it cause the wave collapse and truly random info to emerge. or something along that line..
body positioning?
Proprioception/ kinaesthesia presumably. The body's ability to locate its own limbs - the sense of position and movement. The absence of proprioception would make it virtually impossible to scratch one's nose and stand upright, what-have-you. Interestingly, some people have a condition which destroys such, namely polyneuropathy of the neuraxis. Very nice neuroscience.
Without proprioception, your sensory experiences would be limited. 'Tis responsible for providing us with great muscle loosening and most importantly, relaxation. At least that's how I like to view it.
No I think you're starting to lose the plot. It comes with trying to maintain a dignified difference past its sell-by. Elroch defined randomness as an INABILITY to predict a pattern. I had previously defined it as an inability to recognise a pattern. Really, the two things are more or less synonymous but I slightly preferred Elroch's version because it's more fundamental. Believe me, the definition is correct.
lol. and what if you define TR to be a cookie? does it make it a cookie?
but seriously.. if you ask physicists about TR, they are likely to talk about the wave collapse, and the emergent of truly random information as result. that is truly, absolutely random information.
so it doesnt matter how you define it, because everyone know what it means. but you cant ignore the truly random physical phenomena, and instead talk about the ability of a monkey like creature to predict events : )
but he had another definition before, somthing random to every entity or observer or something.. elroch whats your definition again?
If you define true randomness to be a cookie, then it wouldn't exist because I am the great cookie monster. It would have been devoured long ago! Discussion over, we needn't discuss any free will or determinism ramifications, it's inexistent and rightly so!
Alright.. Im thinkin Uke has been with us all along. Perhaps this whole thread is one big science project. (Am I close? ) lol
If not, let's roll with it. What we know is that randomness exists. We also know it has it's boundaries. is a rational starting point for any discernment.. wtf
Thirty years on, our successors will be howling with uncontrollable fits of laughter at how we petty predecessors managed to generate a forum with such petty facts. The science project is born, but decades on, when humanity can but assimilate large sums of information, it will face its demise. Although scientific progress in the 21st century isn't going all too well with a global pandemic...
Very well.. After much more (well, doesn't matter does it?) Do 'they' garner their information through natural selection?
Is Artificial Intelligence superior to our current 'super computers' ?
Second part.. Follow the 'money' if you are able too..
Best to drop ideas about "soul" as they mean zilch. You can replace it with "mind" or "brain".
where it gets too weird is trying to 'materalize' consciousness. u know, how atoms & molecules align to form thought. or do they ? doing this could set the foundations of D. tho i dont feel the gods are gonna let this one happen lol !
No I think you're starting to lose the plot. It comes with trying to maintain a dignified difference past its sell-by. Elroch defined randomness as an INABILITY to predict a pattern. I had previously defined it as an inability to recognise a pattern. Really, the two things are more or less synonymous but I slightly preferred Elroch's version because it's more fundamental. Believe me, the definition is correct.
lol. and what if you define TR to be a cookie? does it make it a cookie?
but seriously.. if you ask physicists about TR, they are likely to talk about the wave collapse, and the emergent of truly random information as result. that is truly, absolutely random information.
so it doesnt matter how you define it, because everyone know what it means. but you cant ignore the truly random physical phenomena, and instead talk about the ability of a monkey like creature to predict events : )
but he had another definition before, somthing random to every entity or observer or something.. elroch whats your definition again?
I think you've taken Many Worlds too seriously. The best definition of randomness doesn't stop being the best definition if you imagine yourself to inhabit a random universe where it isn't, though.
I think the physicists you speak of are trying to blind you with science .... or maybe they blinded themselves. It really is not necessary to draw on quantum physics, which they may imagine themselves understanding more than you and which may help them to feel at ease, within their comfort zone or even superior. That is not what defining a normal word needs at all.
Better to ask an expert on English, linguistics or philosophy. I can help.
I'll try to put the definition of T.R. into simple concepts if it will help.
Any sequence that isn't random will, sooner or later, be identified as generated by an algorithm or maybe a number of them. That means it's generated by a method designed to simulate randomness but a computer always calculates, unless there's an outside source like I mentioned before, of a truly random series that can be read.
So with pseudorandom series, there are always patterns even if they're very difficult to detect. If a pattern is recognisable, that means that we don't have T.R. In order to recognise a pattern it is necessary to predict it. To put it another way, you haven't recognised a pattern if you can't work out what comes next.
Saying we're only monkeys doesn't help. That's an argument against the ape. It may be an ad simien argument.
Sorry, I'm probably not on form today and also I have learned that it's one thing to understand randomness and quite another to describe it well. You either have it or you don't maybe?
You don't. Speak in practical terms rather than abstract ones (that use mathematics). Too constricting.
TR simply means something being observed Occurred without prior influence.
<<the observation itself dont occur randomly. but it cause the wave collapse and truly random info to emerge. or something along that line..>>
Truly random? I thought probabilistic. Are you sure they know what they're talking about?
I'll try to put the definition of T.R. into simple concepts if it will help.
Any sequence that isn't random will, sooner or later, be identified as generated by an algorithm or maybe a number of them. That means it's generated by a method designed to simulate randomness but a computer always calculates, unless there's an outside source like I mentioned before, of a truly random series that can be read.
So with pseudorandom series, there are always patterns even if they're very difficult to detect. If a pattern is recognisable, that means that we don't have T.R. In order to recognise a pattern it is necessary to predict it. To put it another way, you haven't recognised a pattern if you can't work out what comes next.
Saying we're only monkeys doesn't help. That's an argument against the ape. It may be an ad simien argument.
Sorry, I'm probably not on form today and also I have learned that it's one thing to understand randomness and quite another to describe it well. You either have it or you don't maybe?
It's probably worth mentioning that the detection itself can only ever be "with high probability". If someone gives you a billion zeros and asks if it is from a uniform random distribution over the 10 digits, you can't say "NO!" with certainty, just with a lot of confidence. One in 10**1000000000 times a truly random source will output this, of course.
A non-randomness detector like you envisage can bet on non-randomness based on what it infers is probably true from a finite sample and generally, if it has used a sensible method to detect non-randomness, it will win the bets.
With good pseudo-random number generators, the time before patterns actually repeat may be either stupendously large or infinite (for an example of the latter take your favourite transcendental number and process its digits in some imaginative way).
I think it's an idea associated with singularity. That a specific cause exists. Events become as a chain link, one following the other, influenced only by it's immediate past.
Finding a specific cause works for material observations. With abstract thought the topic turns to discussions of Origins. It's a philosophical question. Science has nothing to say except to make the measurements.